Proposal for a European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC) : final study report.
Date: 2021-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Directorate-General for Digital Services
Subjects: administrative transparency, computer systems, digital technology, information technology, open data, report, smart city, systems interconnection, urban community

Final Study Report - Proposal for a 
European Interoperability Framework for 
Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC) 

Disclaimer 

This deliverable was prepared for the ISA2 programme by Deloitte under SC417. 

The views expressed in this deliverable are purely those of the authors and may not, in any 
circumstances, be interpreted as stating an official position of the European Commission. 

The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the information included in this 
report, nor does it accept any responsibility for any use thereof. 

Reference herein to any specific products, specifications, process, or service by trade name, 
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 
recommendation, or favoring by the European Commission. 

All care has been taken by the author to ensure that s/he has obtained, where necessary, 
permission to use any parts of manuscripts including illustrations, maps, and graphs, on which 
intellectual property rights already exist from the titular holder(s) of such rights or from her/his or 
their legal representative. 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission 
Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 
14.12.2011, p. 39). 

Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International  (CC-BY  4.0)  licence  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
This  means  that  reuse  is  allowed  provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are 
indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission 
may need to be sought directly from the respective rightholders. 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-40549-8 

doi:10.2799/085469 

NO-02-21-931-EN-N 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

On the phone or by email 

contact this service: 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can 

find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can 

•  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

•  at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or 

•  by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 

the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://op.europa.eu/en/ 

publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct 

or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official 

language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

EU law and related documents 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en)  provides  access  to  datasets 

from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non- 

commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
Final Study Report - Proposal for a 
European Interoperability Framework for 
Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC) 

European Commission  
Directorate General Informatics 
Directorate D – Digital Services 
DIGIT D2 – Interoperability 

Directorate Communication Networks, Content and Technology 
Directorate C - Digital Excellence & Science Infrastructure 
CNECT C3 – Technologies for Smart Communities 

ISA2 Action 2016.33: European Interoperability Framework Implementation: EIF and Smart Cities, 
towards a Smart Cities and Communities Interoperability Framework 

Date: 28th May 2021 
This study was carried out for the European Commission by: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission Project officers 
Serge NOVARETTI, DG CNECT C3 Unit, Andrea HALMOS, DG CNECT C3 Unit, Victoria KALOGIROU, DG 
DIGIT D2 Unit, Noirin NI EARCAIN, DG CNECT C3 Unit, Georges LOBO, DG DIGIT D2 Unit 

Project Team 
Maxim CHANTILLON, KU Leuven, César CASIANO FLORES, KU Leuven, Joep CROMPVOETS, KU Leuven, 
Mira  SALLAMO,  Deloitte,  Miguel  EIRAS  ANTUNES,  Deloitte,  Maria  Garcia  BARRON,  Deloitte,  Jean 
BARROCA, Deloitte, Pedro VICENTE, Deloitte, Ana VAZ RAPOSO, Deloitte, Gulam SIDIQUE, Deloitte 

Reviewers: 
Serge NOVARETTI, DG CNECT C3 Unit, Victoria KALOGIROU, DG DIGIT D2 Unit, Noirin NI EARCAIN, DG 
CNECT C3 Unit, Andrea HALMOS, DG CNECT C3 Unit, Georges LOBO, DG DIGIT D2 Unit, Zsofia SZIRANYI, 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit, Isa Katharina VON KALBEN, DG DIGIT D2 Unit, Miguel ALVAREZ RODRIGUEZ, DG 
DIGIT D2 Unit, Ruben NARZUL, DG DIGIT D2 Unit, Asta GRICIENE, DG DIGIT D2 Unit, Natalia Aristimuno 
PEREZ, DG DIGIT D2 Unit, Eddy HARTOG, DG CNECT C3 Unit, Cristina MARTINEZ, DG CNECT C3 Unit, 
Maximilian STROTMANN, DG DIGIT D2 Unit Cristina COSMA, DG DIGIT D2 Unit, João Rodrigues FRADE, 
DG, DIGIT D3 Unit, Caroline CORNEAU, DG DIGIT D3 Unit, Kelly LILJEMO, DG DIGIT D3 Unit, Alexander 
KOTSEV,  Joint  Research  Center,  Michael  LUTZ,  Joint  Research  Center,  Lorena  HERNANDEZ,  Joint 
Research Center, Peter ULRICH, Joint Research Center, Sven SCHADE, Joint Research Center, Francesco 
PIGNATELLI, Joint Research Center, Marco MINGHINI, Joint Research Center 
Co-creators 
Barbara  CABRERA,  City  of  Madrid,  David  CUNHA,  City  of  Lisbon,  Felix  MARTIN,  City  of  Madrid,  Ilia 
CHRISTANTONI, City of Athens, Kadri JUSHKIN, Ministry of Finance – Estonia, Kaimo Käärmann-Liive, 
Association of Estonian Cities and Municipalities’ ICT Competence Centre, Olli VOUTILAINEN, Ministry 
of Economic Affairs and Employment – Finland, Roel RATERINK, City of Amsterdam 
Ramon Ferri TORMO, City of Valencia 

The project team would like to extend its thanks to all those who have contributed to the development 
of  this  framework.  This  includes  the  co-creators,  interviewees,  participants  of  the  stakeholder 
consultation and the project owners who provided information for the use cases.  The project team is 
particularly grateful for the time and efforts of the members of DG DIGIT Unit and DG CNECT Unit, 
who have dedicated their time and efforts for the development of this framework. 

*Full alphabetical list of all contributors can be found on the chapter 8: Acknowledgment.

For more Information, please contact:  CNECT-C3@ec.europa.eu 

Keywords 
EIF4SCC, EIF, ISA² Programme, Living.in-EU, Smart Cities and Communities, Interoperability 

3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 10 

 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 11 

 METHODOLOGICAL PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 13 

2.1. Step 1: Literature Review Process ......................................................................................................... 13 
2.2. Step 2: Co-creation Workshop #1 .......................................................................................................... 13 
2.3. Step 3: Interview Process ...................................................................................................................... 13 
2.4. Step 4: Co-creation Workshop #2 .......................................................................................................... 14 
2.5. Step 5: Working Session with European Commission Project Officers .................................................. 14 
2.6. Step 6: Consultation Process ................................................................................................................. 15 

 SMART CITIES AND COMMUNITIES INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK: CONCEPT, DEFINITION(S) 
AND CATEGORIES ............................................................................................................................. 16 

3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 16 
3.1.1. Objectives and Scope .......................................................................................................................... 16 
3.1.2. Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 16 
3.1.3. Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 16 
3.2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 17 
3.2.1. Step 1: Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 18 
3.2.1.1. Academic Database Search via relevant academic databased and relevant concepts ....................19 
3.2.1.2. Selection of relevant grey literature .................................................................................................19 
3.2.1.3. High-level review of documents .......................................................................................................19 
3.2.1.4. Detail review of documents ..............................................................................................................19 
3.2.1.5. Internal Revision ...............................................................................................................................20 
3.2.1.6. Detailed review of newly added documents (1) ...............................................................................20 
3.2.1.7. Commission Revision ........................................................................................................................20 
3.2.1.8. Results reporting ..............................................................................................................................20 
3.2.1.9. Addition of extra sources ..................................................................................................................20 
3.2.2. Step 2: Co-creation process ................................................................................................................ 20 
3.2.2.1. Selection of relevant city experts (co-creators) ................................................................................21 
3.2.2.2. Co-creation Workshop ......................................................................................................................21 
3.2.2.3. Inclusion of City Experts’ Input .........................................................................................................22 
3.3. Results & Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 22 
3.3.1. Concept of Interoperability ................................................................................................................ 22 
3.3.1.1. Concept of Interoperability ..............................................................................................................22 
3.3.1.2. Concept of European Interoperability Framework ...........................................................................24 
3.3.1.3. Other Interoperability Perspectives at EU Level ...............................................................................27 

3.3.1.3.1. SPATIAL DATA AND INTEROPERABILITY ......................................................................... 27 

3.3.1.3.2. EHEALTH AND INTEROPERABILITY ................................................................................. 28 

3.3.1.4. Literature Review Insights ................................................................................................................29 
3.3.2. Concept of a Smart City and Community ........................................................................................... 31 
3.3.2.1. Concept of a Smart City and Community .........................................................................................31 
3.3.2.2. Classification of Smart City & Community Interoperability Variables ..............................................33 

4 

3.3.2.2.1. VARIABLE 1 – SERVICE DOMAIN .................................................................................... 34 

3.3.2.2.2. VARIABLE 2 – TYPE OF OFFERED SERVICE(S) ................................................................. 34 

3.3.2.2.3. VARIABLE 3 – TECHNOLOGIES........................................................................................ 35 

3.3.2.2.4. VARIABLE 4 – DATA ACCESSIBILITY ................................................................................ 36 

3.3.2.2.5. VARIABLE 5 – SMART CITY AND COMMUNITY ACTORS ................................................. 37 

3.3.2.2.6. NON-INCLUDED VARIABLE – SIZE .................................................................................. 39 

3.3.2.2.7. INTERMEDIARY CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 39 

3.3.3. Connecting Interoperability with Smart Cities (and Communities) .................................................... 41 
3.3.3.1. Challenges related to Smart Cities (and Communities) and Interoperability ...................................41 
3.3.3.2. The EIF4SCC concept ........................................................................................................................42 

3.3.3.2.1. RELEVANT IDENTIFIED PRINCIPLES ................................................................................ 44 

3.3.3.2.1.1. Connecting 2017 European Interoperability Framework principles with the literature .. 44 

3.3.3.2.1.2. Principles identified via the literature review............................................................. 46 

3.3.3.2.1.3. Connecting the principles to the Living-in.eu Principles ............................................. 47 

3.3.3.2.2. RELEVANT IDENTIFIED LAYERS ....................................................................................... 49 

3.3.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 50 
3.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 51 

 PROPOSAL FOR AN EIF4SCC ............................................................................................................. 53 

4.1. Draft EIF4SCC used for the 2nd Workshop ............................................................................................. 53 
4.1.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 53 
4.1.2. Definitions of the EIF4SCC .................................................................................................................. 54 
4.1.3. Tailored Principles for the EIF4SCC ..................................................................................................... 54 
4.1.4. Tailored Layers and Components for the EIF4SCC .............................................................................. 55 
4.2. Draft EIF4SCC used for the Public Consultation ..................................................................................... 58 
4.2.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 58 
4.2.2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 59 
4.2.3. Definitions of the EIF4SCC concepts ................................................................................................... 60 
4.2.4. Tailored Principles for the EIF4SCC ..................................................................................................... 60 
4.2.5. Tailored Layers and Components for the EIF4SCC .............................................................................. 67 
4.2.6. Tailored Conceptual Model for the EIF4SCC ....................................................................................... 77 
4.2.7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 82 
4.3. Final Proposal for the EIF4SCC ............................................................................................................... 83 
4.3.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 83 
4.3.2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 84 
4.3.3. Definitions of the EIF4SCC concepts ................................................................................................... 86 
4.3.4. Tailored Principles for the EIF4SCC ..................................................................................................... 87 
4.3.5. Tailored Layers and Components for the EIF4SCC .............................................................................. 98 
4.3.6. Tailored Conceptual Model for the EIF4SCC ..................................................................................... 111 
4.3.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 116 

5 

 EIF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SMART CITIES AND COMMUNITIES (D04.01) ..................................... 118 

5.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 118 
5.1.1. Objectives and scope ........................................................................................................................ 118 
5.1.2. Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 118 
5.2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 118 
5.2.1. Literature Review Recommendations .............................................................................................. 118 
5.2.2. Recommendations retrieved from Interviews with EC Staff Members and Stakeholders ............... 118 
5.2.3. Preparation of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities ....................................... 119 
5.2.4. Review of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities .............................................. 119 
5.2.5. Preparation of finalised overview of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities ..... 119 
5.3. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 120 
5.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 125 

 NATIONAL SUPPORT FOR INTEROPERABILITY CITIES AND COMMUNITIES (D04.02) ......................... 126 

6.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 126 
6.1.1. Context ............................................................................................................................................. 126 
6.1.2. Objectives and scope ........................................................................................................................ 126 
6.1.3. Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 127 
6.2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 128 
6.2.1. Member State Selection ................................................................................................................... 128 
6.2.2. Documentation Analysis ................................................................................................................... 129 
6.2.3. Interviews with Member State Representatives .............................................................................. 129 
6.2.4. Preparation of finalised overview of supporting instruments for interoperability .......................... 129 
6.3. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 130 
6.3.1. Vision & Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 130 
6.3.2. Main challenges and constraints ...................................................................................................... 131 
6.3.3. Best practices and use cases ............................................................................................................. 132 
6.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 133 

 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 134 

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...................................................................................................................... 134 

 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 138 

 ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................... 145 

10.1. Annexes related to Chapter 2 – Methodological Process .................................................................. 145 
Annex 2.I – Interview Respondents ............................................................................................................ 145 
Annex 2.II – Interview Questionnaire – European Commission Staff ......................................................... 147 
Annex 2.III – Interview Questionnaire – Stakeholders ............................................................................... 157 
10.2. Annexes related to Chapter 3 – Smart Cities and Communities Interoperability Framework: Concept, 

Definition(s) and Categories ................................................................................................................ 164 
Annex 3.I – Overview of Selected and Reviewed Literature ....................................................................... 164 
Annex 3.II – Co-creation Workshop #1 Slide Deck...................................................................................... 172 
Annex 3.III – Co-creation Workshop #1 Report .......................................................................................... 182 
10.3. Annexes related to Chapter 4 – Proposal for an EIF4SCC .................................................................. 187 
Annex 4.I – Co-creation Workshop #2 Slide Deck....................................................................................... 187 
Annex 4.II – Co-creation Workshop #2 Report ........................................................................................... 192 
Annex 4.III – Stakeholder         Consultation       S urvey          &          Stakeholder          Consultation       Results.................................. 201 

6 

10.4. Annexes related to Chapter 5 – EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities ............. 219 
Annex 5.I – Project Overview ..................................................................................................................... 219 
Annex 5.II – Recommendations retrieved from the Literature Review ...................................................... 220 
Annex 5.III – Recommendations retrieved from the Interviews with EC Staff Members and Stakeholders . 221 
Annex 5.IV – Original 2017 EIF Recommendations..................................................................................... 223 
10.5. Annexes related to Chapter 6 – National Support for Interoperability Cities and Communities ...... 225 
Annex 6.I – Project Overview ..................................................................................................................... 225 
Annex 6.II - Interview Questions ................................................................................................................ 226 
Annex 6.III - Outcomes of the interviews with Member State Representatives ........................................ 226 
Portugal  .......................................................................................................................................................226 
Netherlands .................................................................................................................................................230 
Greece…………………. .....................................................................................................................................232 
Slovenia  .......................................................................................................................................................234 
Ireland… .......................................................................................................................................................244 

7 

 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3.1 – Selected Smart City Indicators ........................................................................................... 17 

Table 3.2 - Literature Review - Sub-steps ............................................................................................. 18 

Table 3.3 - Co-creation Process - Sub-steps .......................................................................................... 21 

Table 3.4 - eHealth Network European Interoperability Framework compared with 2010 European 

Interoperability Framework .................................................................................................. 29 

Table 3.5 - Smart City & Community Interoperability Variables Classification .................................... 40 

Table 3.6 - Identified challenges requiring interoperability ................................................................. 41 

Table 3.7 - Cross-checked Principles ..................................................................................................... 44 

Table 3.8 - Suggested Layers and Sub-Layers of the EIF4SCC ............................................................... 49 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
List of Terms and Abbreviations 

Abbreviation  
AI  

Term 
Artificial Intelligence 

AMA 
API 
CEF  
DGEG 
EC 
EIF 
EIF4SCC 
ESPON 
EU 
GDPR 
iAP 
ICC 
ICT 
IoT 
ISA2 
LORDI 
MIMs Plus 
MS 
NIO 
OGC 
OPS 
OPSI 
PA 
PPSN 
SCC  
SDG 
SRIP 
TSE 
VNG 

Administrative Modernization Agency 
Application Programming Interface 
Connecting Europe Facility  
Directorate General for Energy and Geology 
European Commission 
European Interoperability Framework  
European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities 
European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion 
European Union 
General Data Protection Regulation 
National Interoperability Platform 
Intelligent Cities Challenge 
Information and communications technology 
Internet of Things 
Interoperability solutions for public administrations, businesses and citizens 
Local and Regional Digital Indicators 
Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms 
Member State 
Slovenian National Interoperability Framework 
Open Geospatial consortium 
Our Public Service 
National Open Data Portal 
Public Administrations 
Personal Public Services Number 
Smart City/Community 
Single Digital Gateway 
Strategic Research and Innovation Partnerships 
Social Energy Tariff 
Association of Netherlands Municipalities 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

is  a  deliverable  of  ISA²  Action  2016.33:  European  Interoperability  Framework 
This  report 
Implementation:  EIF  and  Smart  Cities,  towards  a  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  Interoperability 
Framework. This action is part of the ISA² programme, which runs from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 
2020. The overall objective of this Action is to develop an Interoperability Framework for Smart and 
Sustainable Cities that will provide European Union (EU) local administration leaders with guidelines 
and principles to enable interoperability across domains, cities, regions and borders towards improved 
service delivery to citizens and businesses. 

The objective of this specific report is to complement the Proposal for the European Interoperability 
Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC) by detailing the methodology and the several 
phases of the development of the framework.  

Interoperability  is  crucial  to  overcome  the  above-mentioned  challenges  in  cities  and  communities. 
Lack  of  interoperability  leads  to  fragmented  service  delivery  at  local  level  as  well  as  lack  of 
communication  among  different  platforms,  technologies  and  stakeholders,  results  in  suboptimal 
services to the public. 

Acknowledging  the  importance  of  interoperability  for  the  well-being  of  inhabitants,  businesses, 
visitors  and  city/community  administrators  in  the  European  Union,  Deloitte  and  KU  Leuven  have 
developed  a  proposal  for  the  European  Interoperability  Framework  for  Smart  Cities/Communities 
(EIF4SCC), appointed by the European Commission. 

This  project  has  been  developed  by  building  on  and  finding  complementarities  with  previous  and 
ongoing initiatives, the Living-in.EU movement, the 2017 European Interoperability Framework (EIF), 
the  Minimal  Interoperability  Mechanisms  (MIMs  Plus)  and  the  outcomes  of  EU  funded  initiatives 
(Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Digital Building Blocks, Smart Cities Marketplace, Intelligent Cities 
Challenge, etc.) and EU funded projects (Synchronicity, Triangulum, etc.).  

The EIF4SCC deliberately focuses on EU local administration leaders as it aims to provide those leaders 
with  a  generic  framework  of  what  interoperability  entails,  and  how  it  can  contribute  to  the 
development of a Smart(er) City/Community. Services for citizens and business can thereby not only 
be offered in a single Smart City/Community, but also across cities, regions and – in the European 
context – also across borders.  

The  EIF4SCC  includes  three  interconnected  definitions,  five  principles,  seven  elements,  one  cross-
cutting  layer  and  the  Interoperability  Governance  background.  In  order  to  ensure  that  EU  local 
administration leaders can easily apply the EIF4SCC to their city or community, a conceptual model 
for integrated service  governance was  developed.  This conceptual model presents the governance 
support required for the coordination of the activities. All these EIF4SCC elements will be explained in 
detail in the following sections.  

Moreover,  this  study  also 
Interoperability 
recommendations  for  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  through  the  analysis  of  EIF  recommendations 
and an analysis on supporting instruments for interoperability. 

includes  a  supporting  section  dedicated 

to 

10 

 
 
 
 
 INTRODUCTION  

is  a  deliverable  of  ISA²  Action  2016.33:  European  Interoperability  Framework 
This  report 
Implementation:  EIF  and  Smart  Cities,  towards  a  Smart  Cities  and  Communities1  Interoperability 
Framework. This action is part of the ISA² programme, which runs from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 
2020. The logic behind this action is that interoperability is not only highly relevant for higher public 
administration, but equally important for local administration. Indeed, the technological changes and 
challenges  do  impact  all  public  administrations,  thereby  leading  to  a  digital  transformation,  and 
interoperability requirements.  

Several challenges lead to the need for increased interoperability at the local level. First of all there is 
the interactions between the local level on the one hand and the higher levels of public administration 
on the other hand. Secondly, the development of Smart Cities and Communities requires an intense 
collaboration  between  the  different  actors  active  within  the  local  context.  Think  thereby  of  local 
administration,  but  also  of  citizens,  private  sector  actors,  universities  and  high  schools,  societal 
organisations etc. Thirdly, the local level faces important challenges such as climate change and socio-
economic  issues,  whereby  interoperability  can  be  an  important  aspect  to  tackle  these  challenges.   
Fourthly, the growing amount of data available at the local level, which is collected among others via 
the Internet of Things (IoT), leads not only to increased possibilities for both policy making and service 
delivery,  but  also  creates  interoperability  requirements.  This  is,  among  others,  recognised  in  the 
recent  European  Commission  Communication  “Shaping  Europe’s  Digital  Future”  (European 
Commission 2020a).  

Overall,  and  in  line  with  those  four  challenges,  it  can  be  argued  that  interoperability  is  of  high 
importance to ensure user-satisfaction with the delivered public services.  

The ISA² Action 2016.33 has three specific objectives:  

•  Develop an Interoperability Framework for local administrations and in particular smart and 

sustainable cities and communities as well as those aiming to become one; 

• 

• 

Identify  a  set  of  recommendations  for  local  administrations,  and  in  particular  smart  and 
sustainable cities and communities as well as and those aiming to become one; 

Increase the awareness of interoperability through identified solutions (such as ISA² Joinup 
platform, CEF Building Blocks, Smart Cities Marketplace, Living-in.EU and related activities). 

Those objectives fit within the broader and overall ambition to strive for a strong, interoperable, EU 
ecosystem  for  smart  cities  and  communities  of  the  future,  with  open  standards  and  urban  digital 
platforms.  Interoperability  functions  thereby  as  an  enabler  for  the  development  of  services  across 
domains,  cities,  regions  and  borders.  The  services  are  thereby  embedded  in  the  smart  cities  and 
communities ecosystem. 

Establishing  an  interoperability  framework  for  smart  cities  and  communities  will  provide  local 
administrations around the EU with definitions, principles, elements, recommendations and use cases, 
and will be a useful help in ensuring an improved service delivery for the end-users. As stated in the 
Commission  Communication  “Smart  Cities  and  Communities  -  European  Innovation  Partnership”, 
interoperability  is  a  clear  prerequisite  for  smart  technologies  (European  Commission  2012a).  The 
EIF4SCC  is  intended  to  facilitate  wider  adoption  of  Smart  City  technologies,  thus  enabling  the 
development of new services across sectors, cities, regions, and countries.  

1 The concept Communities has been included in the title and the study, to underline that this work is not only intended to 

support (large) cities but also the communities in the European Union.  

11 

 
 
                                                            
The  objective  of  this  report  is  to  provide  the  reader  with  an  overview  of  how  the  European 
Interoperability  Framework  for  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  (EIF4SCC)  was  developed  from  a 
methodological point of view. The report is therefore structured as follows:  

•  Chapter  2.  Methodological  Process  provides  an  overview  of  the  methodological  approach 

taken to develop the EIF4SCC.  

•  Chapter 3. Smart Cities and Communities Interoperability Framework: Concept, Definition(s) 
and Categories includes the first results of the development of the EIF4SCC, with a focus on 
the meaning of the definitions and principles.  

•  Chapter  4.  Proposal  for  an  EIF4SCC  includes  three  sub-chapters.  Sub-chapter  4.1  and  4.2 
present  draft  versions  of  the  EIF4SCC.  The  first  draft  version  of  the  report  was  presented 
during Co-creation Workshop 2, the second draft version was presented to the public via the 
Public Consultation. The third sub-chapter presents the final proposal for an EIF4SCC.  
•  Chapter 5. and Chapter 6. take a different approach. Chapter 5. presents a study conducted 
on  interoperability  recommendations  that  are  relevant  for  Smart  Cities  and  Communities, 
with a focus on the 2017 European Interoperability Framework recommendations.  

•  Chapter  6.  Presents  a  study  on  the  national  support  provided  by  EU  Member  States  on 

interoperability at the local level.  

•  Chapter 7. Conclusion provides an overarching conclusion to this study report.  

The report finally includes a bibliography as well as an extensive Annex with overview of all relevant 
methodological material.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 METHODOLOGICAL PROCESS 

In this chapter the overarching methodological approach to develop the EIF4SCC is presented. In total 
six steps were followed. The process to develop the EIF4SCC can be divided into 6 steps. The project 
started in July 2020 and ended in May 2021. The six steps are explained below. 

2.1. Step 1: Literature Review Process 

The research process to define the EIF4SCC started with a literature review process. This literature 
review was followed by a co-creation workshop (see second point of this methodological description). 
The objective of the literature review and the workshop was to define the meaning of the different 
elements that compose the EIF4SCC concept, including the concepts of Smart Cities and Communities 
and Interoperability. The literature review process is extensively described in Chapter 3. Smart Cities 
and Communities Interoperability Framework: Concept, Definition(s) and Categories.  

2.2. Step 2: Co-creation Workshop #1  

The co-creation workshop focused in 3 concrete objectives : 1) to engage with the co-creators ; 2) to 
learn more about the interoperability maturity of the co-creators’ cities and how local 
administrations are addressing this topic; and 3) to discuss and gather input from the co-creators 
about the SCC Interoperability Concept and Definition(s). 
The outcomes and feedback of the co-creation workshop, combining with the results of the literature 
review process described above, were used to set up the report included in Chapter 3. Smart Cities 
and Communities Interoperability Framework: Concept, Definition(s) and Categories. 

2.3. Step 3: Interview Process  

Based  on  the  literature  review  process  and  the  first  co-creation  workshop,  two  objectives  were 
reached. Firstly, the refinement of the EIF4SCC concept, and secondly, a better understanding of the 
concepts of Smart Cities and Communities and Interoperability. To further develop the EIF4SCC on the 
basis of this those two objectives, an interview process with experts on the topics of interoperability 
and smart cities/communities took place. The interviewed experts were are related to the European 
Commission or to external stakeholder organisations, such as interest groups or academic research 
institutions.  A  deliberate  selection  approach  was  chosen,  as  it  allowed  the  research  team  to  gain 
relevant insights for the development of the EIF4SCC. Furthermore, including those experts from an 
early stage onwards in the development of the EIF4SCC helped to gain support for the EIF4SCC in the 
later development stages.  

The content created on the basis of the literature review process and the first co-creation workshop 
led to a questionnaire that could be used during the semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire 
focused on the EIF4SCC components: the definitions, the principles, the layers and local experiences 
related  to  interoperability  in  a  Smart  City/Community  context.  The  questionnaire  was  shared  in 
advance  with  the  respondents.  On  average,  the  interviews  lasted  one  hour.  Two  types  of 
questionnaires  were  created,  one  for  EC  staff  and  one  for  stakeholders.  The  annexes  include  the 
respective questionnaires (in the format of a slide deck) used during the interviews (see Annex 2.II – 
Interview script for European Commission Staff and Annex 2.III – Interview script for Stakeholders). In 
total  31  respondents  participated  to  the  interview  round  (see  Annex  2.I  –  Interview  respondents). 
Based on this interview process, Step 1 and Step 2, the first draft proposal for the EIF4SCC has been 
developed. This version of this first draft proposal presented to the co-creators during Co-creation 
Workshop 2 can be found in Chapter 4. Proposal for an EIF4SCC – 4.1. Draft EIF4SCC used for the 2nd 
Workshop.  

13 

 
 
interviews  allowed  to  shape  the  2017  European 

Furthermore,  and  also  based  on  literature  review  process,  the  research  team  analysed  the 
recommendations included in the 2017 European Interoperability Framework. The insights gathered 
during  the 
Interoperability  Framework 
recommendations to the context of a Smart City / Community. Also, based on the interview process 
and the literature review process, a number of relevant extra recommendations could be identified 
for the Smart City / Community context. This list of recommendations can be found in Chapter 5. EIF 
Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities.  

2.4. Step 4: Co-creation Workshop #2 

The workshop aimed to validate the definitions of the concepts, the principles, and the elements of 
the Framework; and to discuss specific recommendations and use cases for each principle and element 
of the Framework. 

The seven cities that were represented on the first workshop were invited, out of which five were 
present in this second co-creation process. This workshop, as well, was organised as an online session, 
given the COVID-19 restrictions and followed the agenda below: 

• 

Introduction  

•  Project overview 

o  Project timeline 
o  Progress of the study 

•  Co-creating a Smart Cities and Communities European Interoperability Framework (EIF) 

o  Recommendations 
o  Discussion 

•  Next steps  

o  Main conclusion of the discussion  
o  Formal feedback process 

First a general overview of the status of the project was provided followed by the presentation and 
discussion  of  the  concepts  of  Interoperability,  Smart  Cities  and  Communities,  and  European 
Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (already discussed in the 1st workshop). 

Afterwards, the co-creators were asked to fill in on recommendations linked with use cases on a digital 
“post-it”, by using an online collaborative tool (Miro) to facilitate the discussion and the co-creation 
process. This exercise was split into two parts: the first part focused on the elements, while the second 
part focused on the principles of the Framework. 

The workshop was concluded with a short discussion over the need to develop a conceptual model 
for the EIF4SCC, taking as a baseline the conceptual model of the EIF. 

The slide deck and the full workshop report of this co-creation session can be found in Annex 4.I and 
Annex 4.II, respectively, of this report.  

2.5. Step 5: Working Session with European Commission Project Officers 

Throughout the development process of the EIF4SCC, a number of working sessions were organised 
between  the  different  Project  Officers  of  the  European  Commission,  Deloitte  and  KU  Leuven. 
Important to underline is the fact that those working sessions were organised iteratively in relation to 
the previously described methodological steps. For example, the literature review process and the co-
creation workshop led to definitions for the concept of a Smart City/Community, interoperability and 

14 

 
 
the EIF4SCC. Before organising the interviews with the respondents, a working session was organised 
with the European Commission Project Officers to discuss and debate those definitions. The modified 
and agreed upon versions of those definitions were then included in the questionnaires for the general 
consultation.  

During the entire development process this logic of iterative working sessions was followed, ensuring 
a  close  collaboration  on  the  EIF4SCC  between  the  European  Commission  Project  Officers  and  the 
research team composed by Deloitte and KU Leuven. In total more than 10 working sessions were 
organised with the European Commission Project Officers. The topics discussed during those working 
sessions  were,  among  other,  related  to  the  concepts,  the  principles,  the  elements,  the  conceptual 
model, the recommendations and the use cases of the EIF4SCC.  

This version of the draft proposal presented to the public during the Public Consultation can be found 
in Chapter 4. Proposal for an EIF4SCC – 4.2. Draft EIF4SCC used for the Public Consultation. 

2.6. Step 6: Consultation Process   

A wider stakeholder consultation process was prepared and launched, using the EU Survey tool, to 
gather additional contributions and views on the definitions, principles, layers, conceptual model and 
recommendations and use cases of the draft proposal for an EIF4SCC. The EU survey was the tool used 
in the Public consultation. 

The consultation went from the 22nd of March until the 12th of April, and 50 responses were collected, 
from academic/ research institutions, business associations, EU & Non-EU  citizens, NGOs, National 
and Local authorities, European Institutions, among others. The survey used can be found in Annex 
4.III of this report. 

Briefly, the results of this consultation were very positive, as more than 75% of the respondents are 
aligned  with  the  framework  and  with  its  content.  Some  improvement  points  were  raised  mostly 
related to trust and privacy of the data shared. The outcomes of the consultation can be found in 
Annex 4.IV of this report. 

The final version of the proposal for an EIF4SCC can be found in Chapter 4. Proposal for an EIF4SCC – 
4.3. Final Proposal for the EIF4SCC.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 SMART  CITIES  AND  COMMUNITIES 

INTEROPERABILITY  FRAMEWORK:  CONCEPT, 

DEFINITION(S) AND CATEGORIES 

3.1. Introduction 

3.1.1. Objectives and Scope 

The overall objective of this chapter is twofold:  

•  Objective 1: Define the meaning of the EIF4SCC concept.  

•  Objective 2: Understand the concepts of Smart Cities and Communities and Interoperability.  

From  a  methodological  point  of  view,  a  twofold  approach  was  followed,  whereby  first  a  literature 
review took place, and secondly, a co-creation process with city experts was organised. Also, since the 
concept  of  EIF4SCC  has  not  yet  been  defined,  it  was  decided  to  approach  this  conceptualisation 
exercise by splitting the concept into two, being one the concept of Smart City (and Community) and 
two, the concept of interoperability. Building upon these two concepts, we created the EIF4SCC.  

Related to the definition of a Smart City (and Community), also a classification, bringing together the 
recurrent  variables  of  a  Smart  City  (and  Community),  is  developed  as  it  ensures  that  the  variety 
existing  within  the  Smart  Cities  (and  Communities)  is  covered  by  the  EIF4SCC.  The  classification 
ensures that the Interoperability Framework covers the entire variation existing in Smart Cities (and 
Communities).  

3.1.2. Structure 

This chapter continues with a description of the applied methodological approach. It explains the two-
step approach that consists of a literature review and a co-creation process. This section is followed 
by the results and discussion section where the concept of Smart City (and Community) is defined, 
together  with  the  concept  of  interoperability  and  the  EIF4SCC.  Afterwards  a  chapter  conclusion 
follows.  

3.1.3. Limitations 

Before going further into the topic of defining the meaning of the EIF4SCC, it is relevant to discuss a 
limitation identified during the research process. For the selection of the local administrations (taking 
place in A02.02 Engagement of local Administrations 2), a search was conducted to identify potentially 
relevant indicators. The search originally focused on (1) the population size of local administrations, 
(2) the degree of urbanisation (DEGURBA)3, and (3) the indicators related to the meaning of a Smart 
City (Eurostat 2020a, 2020b). This would have allowed a quantitative selection of local administrations 
based on a variety of indicators. Those indicators were retrieved from the literature review (see Table 
3.1). Unfortunately, however, the selected Smart City indicators could not be used as the necessary 
data was only available on a Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) 1, NUTS 2 or NUTS 
3 level.  

2  This  activity  refers  to  the  engagement  of  local  administrations,  which  is  crucial  for  proper  adoption  of  an  Europe-wide 
interoperability  framework.  This  engagement  entails  the  connection  between  different  stakeholder  groups,  the  co-
creation  of  the  results  of  the  study  with  key  stakeholders  representing  the  EU  local  administration  reality,  and  a  wide 
consultation with those willing to be involved. 

3  Degree  of  urbanisation  refers  to  is  a  classification  that  indicates  the  character  of  an  area.  The  latest  update  of  the 
classification is based on 2011 population grid and the 2016 Local Administrative Units (LAU) boundaries. The next major 
update will be based on 2020 Census results. Based on the share of local population living in urban clusters and in urban 
centres,  it  classifies  Local  Administrative  Units  (LAU  or  communes)  into  three  types  of  area:  Cities  (densely  populated 
areas), Towns and suburbs (intermediate density areas) and Rural areas (thinly populated areas) (Eurostat 2020a, 2020b) 

16 

 
 
 
                                                            
Table 3.1 – Selected Smart City Indicators 

Related Smart City Domain 

Selected Smart City Indicator 

Smart economy 

European Regional Competitiveness Index 

Smart people 

Tertiary Educational Attainment (25-64) by Sex (%) 

Smart governance 

Households with Broadband Access (%) 

Smart environment 

SO2 Emissions (Tons) 

Smart living 

Employment rate (15-64 years) (%) 

Smart mobility   

Network Efficiency 

Source: Retrieved from Sharifi (2019) and Sharifi (2020) 

Finally, it was decided to make a selection of local administrations based on their population size only. 
For this, the categorisation included in the Cities in Europe – The New OECD-EC Definition Report was 
used (< 250.000 inhabitants = small city / between 250.000 and 1.000.000 inhabitants = a medium city 
/  >1.000.00  inhabitants  =  large  city)  (Dijkstra  and  Poelman  2012).  It  has  to  be  underlined  that  the 
selection  of  local  administrations  would  have  had  a  higher  level  of  representativity  if  relevant 
indicators  related  to  smart  city  performance  could  have  been  taken  into  account  as  well. 
Unfortunately, no data was (and is) available for the entire European Union at the local administration 
level for the indicators presented in Table 3.1.  

This can be considered as a limitation of the research. Indeed, this is a limitation, as the selection of 
local administrations therefore could not be based on indicators having a direct link to Smart City and 
Community aspects. The availability of relevant data would have allowed to make a more scientifically 
underpinned selection of local administrations to be involved in the co-creation process. Therefore it 
is  recommended  to  further  develop  the  data  availability  and  quality  at  the  level  of  local 
administrations, for the entire European Union (conceptualised as the LAUs – i.e. Local Administrative 
Units (Eurostat 2020b)).  

3.2. Methodology 

As aforementioned, the concept of EIF4SCC has not been defined in earlier studies. Therefore, it was 
decided to approach this conceptualising exercise by splitting it into the two main concepts. One is 
the  concept  of  interoperability  (and  the  related  interoperability  framework)  and  the  other  is  the 
concept of a Smart City (and Community). Both concepts have received substantial attention in both 
the  academic  and  grey  literature.  The  combination  of  these  two  concepts  creates  the  EIF4SCC 
definition/concept.  

A two-step approach has been followed to define both the concept. Those two steps were chosen as 
their combination is expected to lead to the EIF4SCC concept that is widely supported. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1 - Visualisation of the Methodological Approach 

Literature review 

Co-creation process 

D02.01 – Report 

Source: Personal Research 

The literature review ensures that the conceptualisation is based on existing material in the form of 
written  sources,  both  academic  sources  and  grey  sources  (i.e.  documents  from  public  and  private 
sector  organisations  that  did  not  go  through  a  peer-review  process  but  that  can  be  considered  as 
relevant for this study). The co-creation process, organised via a workshop with a group of city experts, 
ensures  that  the  conceptualisation  of  the  concepts  based  on  the  literature  review,  is  accepted  by 
experts in the field and it can be modified when necessary. As visualised in Figure 3.1, the Literature 
review feeds directly into this Report, but also into the co-creation process since the results of the 
Literature review are used to feed into this process.  

3.2.1. Step 1: Literature Review 

The literature review process that has been followed can be labelled as semi-structured, as it is based 
on  a  number  of  well-defined  sub-steps.  Those  different  sub-steps  are  visualised  in  Table  3.2.  The 
overview of all the selected and reviewed literature can be found in Annex 3.I.  

Table 3.2 - Literature Review - Sub-steps 

Description of action 

Academic Database Search via relevant academic databases and relevant concepts 

Selection of relevant grey literature 

High-level review of documents 

Detailed review of documents 

Internal Revision  

Detailed review of newly added documents, based on step 5 

Commission Revision  

Detailed review of newly added documents, based on step 7 

Results reporting   

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Addition of extra sources  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
3.2.1.1. Academic Database Search via relevant academic databased and relevant concepts 

In order to ensure a correct, i.e. a sufficiently wide but also a sufficiently focused literature review, it 
was decided to search in a number of academic databases, via pre-selected concepts. The consulted 
databases were: KU Leuven Database, JSTOR, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, Web of Science, SpringerLink 
and Google Scholar. The documents retrieved via the search had to include both the concept of “Smart 
City or Smart Cities” and “interoperability”.  

3.2.1.2. Selection of relevant grey literature 

Based on references made in the academic literature, by the European Commission and via the general 
knowledge of the researchers, grey literature was also included in the literature review. This refers 
more  specifically  to  documents  of  the  European  Commission,  European  Parliament,  the  EIP-SCC, 
Living-in.EU and EU-funded research projects related to Smart Cities and Communities. Particularly 
relevant in this step was the entire review of the EIP-SCC Database, which contains a high number of 
useful  documents.  Furthermore,  the  selection  of  the  relevant  grey  literature  also  happened  via  a 
snowball approach.  

For each reviewed document, the source, authors, year of publication, title, format, data source and 
website link has been collected. In this way the necessary metadata is available to gain a complete 
understanding  of  both  the  document  and  the  relation  of  the  document  towards  other  documents 
included in the literature review.  

3.2.1.3. High-level review of documents 

Based on this first selection of documents, described in 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2 all selected documents 
were  reviewed  on  their  relevancy  for  this  particular  study  on  the  concept  of  EIF4SCC  or  on  their 
relevancy for the entire Action – mainly then the identification of relevant Principles, Layers and/or 
Recommendations.  The  Principles  and  Layers  are  especially  relevant  for  Task  3,  and  in  particular 
A03.02  Prepare  EIF  Draft.  The  recommendations  are  relevant  for  Task  4  –  A04.01  EIF 
recommendations for policy makers in Smart Cities and Communities.  

This review process was conducted via a scanning of the entire document structure, the abstract and, 
if necessary, the introduction of the document.  

3.2.1.4. Detail review of documents 

The list of relevant documents resulting from 3.2.1.3 was then reviewed in great detail, whereby the 
research focused on a number of elements:  

•  Definition/description of a Smart City or Community  

•  Definition/description of interoperability  

•  Reasoning to focus/include interoperability  

•  Classification approaches included in the document 

•  Principles referred to in the document 

•  Recommendations referred to in the document 

•  Potentially other relevant aspects  

Those different elements were chosen on the basis of the input required from the literature review 
for this report, as well as for the activities of Task 3 and Task 4, and in particular, A03.01 Preparatory 
work, A03.02 Prepare EIF Draft and A04.01 EIF recommendations for policy makers in Smart Cities and 
Communities.  

19 

 
 
3.2.1.5. Internal Revision 

Since the previous steps of the literature review were undertaken by two members of the team, an 
internal revision process was set-up. The process focused on the inclusion of other potentially relevant 
documents, in particular grey literature, mainly published by private sector organisations and think 
tanks. The inclusion of those documents is necessary to ensure that a wide-scope of relevant material 
is analysed.  

3.2.1.6. Detailed review of newly added documents (1) 

The  extra  documents,  added  via  3.1.2.4  were  all  reviewed,  following  the  same  process  as  the 
documents selected via the first search round. The approach taken in 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.1.4 was followed.  

3.2.1.7. Commission Revision  

The draft literature overview was then shared with the European Commission project officers, and 
feedback was collected. Of high importance for the inclusion of other relevant documents was the 
mapping exercise undertaken by Living-in.EU “Mapping EU Assets with JBS Commitments” and the 
various EU funded projects referred to by the European Commission project officers. Also, a number 
of EU documents with a  wider focus  on Smart City/interoperability were included in the literature 
review.  

3.2.1.8. Results reporting  

On  the  basis  of  the  detailed  review  of  the  different  documents,  collected  in  three  waves  (internal 
collection round,  internal revision round and European Commission revision round), the necessary 
material  was  available  to  define  the  concept  of  a  Smart  City  and  Community,  the  concept  of 
interoperability  and  the  concept  of  a  EIF4SCC  (including  the  classification  of  Smart  Cities  and 
Communities).  

In  order  to  be  able  to  define  the  different  sub-elements  of  each  of  the  concepts,  it  was  deemed 
necessary in some cases to do extra research and to make use of extra sources, which were originally 
not  included  in  the  literature  overview.  An  example  can  help  to  clarify  this.  In  the  classification  of 
relevant Smart City and Community variables, a variable is included referring to technology. This is 
Variable 3 – Technologies. It includes an overview of different technologies that are relevant in a Smart 
City and Community context. Those technologies have all been identified via the literature review, but 
there is general tendency in the literature to include the name of those technologies without clearly 
defining  them.  This  made  it  necessary  for  the  researchers  to  include  other  sources,  originally  not 
included in the literature review, to define those concepts.  

3.2.1.9. Addition of extra sources 

The literature review is a non-static exercise, and the literature table including potentially relevant 
sources is therefore kept up-to-date. Whenever a potentially relevant source is identified during the 
research process, it will be included in the literature review.  

3.2.2. Step 2: Co-creation process 

The co-creation process of this report has been organised in the form of a workshop with city experts. 
A co-creation process can be described as an approach whereby the users of the final end-product – 
in this project the development of a EIF4SCC – are actively involved in the design of the end-product 
(Brandsen, Steen, and Verschuere 2018). By including the users already in this stage of the project, 
the researchers aim to ensure a close alignment with the expectations of the users. Often co-creation 
is focused on the creation of public services, focusing thereby on the inclusion of citizens. Involving 
the users, whoever they are, in the development of a product, can however also be considered as co-
creation. The users are in this report labelled as city experts.  

20 

 
 
The co-creation session followed in this report consisted of three different sub-steps. Those different 
sub-steps are presented in Table 3.3. The slide deck used during the co-creation workshop (Step 2) 
can be found in the Annex 3.II.  

Table 3.3 - Co-creation Process - Sub-steps 

Description of action 

1 

2 

3 

Selection of relevant city experts 

Co-creation Workshop  

Inclusion of city experts’ input 

3.2.2.1. Selection of relevant city experts (co-creators) 

In order to support the development of the EIF4SCC, a co-creation group has been created. This co-
creation group consists of various city experts from around the EU. They have been selected on the 
basis of three sub-sequent steps. First, all cities that belong to the Living-in.eu Education and Capacity 
Building  working  group  have  been  listed.  Also,  two  national  entities  and  one  regional  entity  were 
included. The two national entities are the Ministry of Finance of Estonia and the Ministry of Economic 
Affairs and Employment of Finland. The regional entity is the Region of Hessen in Germany. Secondly, 
also the capital cities of the Member States to which the Living-in.eu Education and Capacity Building 
working group members belong have been added to the list. From this list of city experts, it was, in a 
third step, decided to only keep the large and medium sized cities for the co-creation process.  

Ten signatories from the Living-in.EU were invited to take part in the co-creation process. Seven out 
of ten accepted the invitation as listed below: 

•  Ajuntament de la ciutat de València – Spain  

•  Ayuntamiento de Madrid – Spain  

•  City Council of Lisbon – Portugal  

•  City of Amsterdam – The Netherlands 

•  City of Athens - Greece 

•  Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment - Finland 

•  Ministry of Finance - Estonia 

3.2.2.2. Co-creation Workshop  

The  ten  above  listed  co-creators  were  invited  to  the  co-creation  workshop.  From  those  ten  cities, 
seven were represented in the co-creation workshop. Although this might sound as a limited amount 
of participants, it has the strength of creating a small-scale group discussion with the potential for a 
strong interaction. The workshop was organised as an online session, given the COVID-19 restrictions, 
with the following agenda:  

• 

Introduction  

o  Meet our co-creators 

•  Project overview 

o  Project timeline 
o  What does co-creation mean  

•  Co-creating a Smart Cities and Communities European Interoperability Framework (EIF) 
21 

 
 
 
 
o  Draft report overview 
o  Co-creators’ round table  
o  Co-creating the draft report  

•  Next steps  

o  Main conclusion of the discussion  
o  Formal feedback process 

The co-creation part was held on the section “Co-creating a Smart Cities and Communities EIF”. First, 
a general overview of content of the draft report was provided, whereby the attention was devoted 
to specific concepts – interoperability, Smart City and Community, and EIF4SCC. Afterwards, during 
the roundtable discussion, the co-creators’ round table were asked to reflect and to share on their 
best/worst interoperability story as well as the main challenges that the cities are facing nowadays 
concerning  interoperability  issues.  Then,  the  co-creators  where  asked  to  give  their  opinion  using 
online poll about the proposal description for the following concept: 

• 

Interoperability – Definition 

•  EIF4SCC – Concept  

•  EIF4SCC – Principles  

•  EIF4SCC – Layers 

The slide deck and the report of this co-creation workshop can be found in Annex 3.II and Annex 3.III 
of this report, respectively.  

3.2.2.3. Inclusion of City Experts’ Input  

The input received during the workshop has been included in this report. The workshop report can be 
found in Annex 3.III. The conclusions for each of the different topics discussed are also included in the 
different report sections that focus on those topics. This facilitates the reading of the document.  It is 
important to underline that the feedback and inputs of the co-creators needs to be balanced with the 
results of the literature review.  

3.3. Results & Discussion  

3.3.1. Concept of Interoperability  

3.3.1.1. Concept of Interoperability  

Preparing  a  working  definition  for  the  concept  of  interoperability  started  with  the  interoperability 
definition that is included in the latest version of the EIF (European Commission 2017b). In the EIF, 
interoperability is defined as  

“the ability of organisations to interact towards mutually beneficial goals, involving the sharing 
of information and knowledge between these organisations, through the business processes 
they support, by means of the exchange of data between their ICT systems.”. (European 
Commission 2017b) 

This  definition  includes  a  number  of  key  aspects  that  make  the  EIF  specific  in  comparison  to  the 
definitions found in the literature. Those key aspects are:  

• 

• 

the focus on organisations, 

the focus on both information and knowledge, 

22 

 
 
 
• 

• 

the distinction made between information and knowledge on the one hand, and the data on 
the other hand, 

the focus on an objective, i.e. interact towards mutually beneficial goals.  

Looking  at  the  most  common  definition4  emerging  from  the  literature  review,  learns  that  those 
aspects are not coming back in this definition:  

“the ability (or capability) of two or more systems (and/or networks, devices, applications, 
components) to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged” 
(among other used by Andročec (2017), Brutti et al. (2018, 2019), Delgado (2018), Frascella et al. 
(2018); Rech, Pistauer, and Steger (2018)) 

Instead of having a focus on organisations, there is a focus on “two or more systems” which can be 
networks, devices, applications or components. The focus on “systems” can be considered to be more 
general,  but  it  can  also  be  read  as  a  more  technical  focus.  Indeed,  the  specific  reference  made  to 
“networks,  devices,  applications  or  components”  makes  clear  that  the  focus  of  this  often  cited 
definition  of  interoperability  is  more  technical  then  the  focus  that  is  taken  in  the  EIF  definition  of 
interoperability.  

Also,  there  is  only  a  focus  on  information,  and  not  on  knowledge  or  data.  However,  an  important 
distinction  needs  to  be  made  between  information,  knowledge  and  data.  Information  can  lead  to 
knowledge, and information is based on structuring and analysing data. An example can clarify the 
important  differentiation  that  needs  to  be  made  between  those  three  elements:  Different  mobile 
devices can collect mobility data, but this data will only become relevant if connected to spatial data 
and if the data is structured. This will lead to information on the traffic situation in a city, which can 
then  become  knowledge,  if  interpreted  by  making  use  of  existing  interpretation  and  analysis 
frameworks.  

A  final,  and  key  difference  between  the  literature  definition  and  the  definition  of  the  European 
Commission is the orientation towards an objective. Whereas the literature definition does not include 
objective, and purely described what interoperability is, the definition of the European Commission 
refers to the overall objective of interoperability.  

Overall, it could be argued that, given the fact that the EIF4SCC is being developed for policymakers at 
the local level, the definition of the EIF is more relevant than the common definition applied in the 
literature.  However,  whereas  the  EIF  definition  is  focused  on  organisations,  the  Smart  City  (and 
Community) context is not only focused on organisations, but also on individuals and IoT, covering 
multiple policy domains. The EIF has been developed from a public administration perspective towards 
the  delivery  of  cross  border  public  services  to  citizens  and  businesses,  but  the  Smart  City  (and 
Community) context does include also other actors. Non-public administration actors are covered by 
the term “organisation”, but individual actors are not. Therefore, the original European Commission 
definition of interoperability is extended from “organisations” to “organisations and individuals”.  

As the IoT is of high importance in a Smart City (and Community) context, and as it is not necessarily 
understood by all to be covered by the reference to ICT systems, it was decided to also make a specific 
reference to the IoT in the definition.  

4 Some authors, such as Brutti et al. (2018) include extra elements in this standard definition such as the need to securely 

and effectively exchanging information, and the need to avoid inconvenience for the user.  

23 

 
 
                                                            
On the basis of the above, the following operational working definition of interoperability is suggested 
for the EIF4SCC:  

“the ability of organisations and individuals to interact towards mutually beneficial goals, 
involving the sharing of information and knowledge between these organisations and 
individuals, through the business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data 
between their ICT systems, including IoT.” 

Applying this definition, which is strongly linked to the original definition of interoperability is also in 
line with the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, which states that “a common understanding of 
interoperability throughout the European Union is guaranteed through the European Interoperability 
Framework” (European Commission 2016a).  

3.3.1.2. Concept of European Interoperability Framework 

Given the high importance of the EIF for the European Union and its Member States, it is relevant to 
take a closer look at what it precisely entails. The EIF is defined as follows:  

“a commonly agreed approach to the delivery of European public services in an interoperable 
manner. It defines basic interoperability guidelines in the form of common principles, models 
and recommendations.” (European Commission 2017b) 

The focus and orientation of the EIF lies on offering public services, which is also related to what local 
administrations  do.  At  the  level  of  local  administrations  however,  there  is  a  high  variation  in  the 
services offered. Indeed, also non-public administration actors can play a role in the service delivery. 
The overall framework is underpinned by twelve principles which are “intended to establish general 
behaviours  on  interoperability”(European  Commission  2017b).  Given  the  importance  of  those 
principles for the development of the EIF4SCC, the principles are presented in this report.   

Those principles are (indicated in bold)5:  

1)  Subsidiarity refers to the need to take EU decisions as closely as possible to the citizen. The 
proportionality refers to the fact that EU actions are limited to what is necessary to achieve 
the objectives of the EU Treaties. 

2)  Openness relates to data, software and specifications. Open government data refers to the 
idea  that  all  public  data  should  be  freely  available  for  use  and  reuse  by  others,  unless 
restrictions apply. Regarding open source software, the 2017 EIF underlines that using and 
promoting it can help save development costs, avoid lock-in effects and allow fast adaptation 
to specific business needs. Also, the use of open specifications and standards is promoted and 
encouraged. Specifications should be mature and sufficiently supported by the market, unless 
they are being used to create innovative solutions. Openness also refers to the involvement 
of  citizens  and  business  in  the  service  development.  From  a  Smart  City  (and  Community) 
perspective, this is especially important.  

3)  Transparency can refer to three aspects. Firstly, enabling visibility inside the administrative 
environment of a public administration. Secondly, ensuring the availability of interfaces to the 
various information systems and the data they handle to facilitate reuse of systems and data, 
and as such enabling these to be integrated into larger systems. Thirdly, securing the right to 
the protection of personal data, by respecting the applicable legal framework for the large 
volumes of personal data of citizens, held and managed by public administrations. 

5 The description are taken from and based on the descriptions provided in the 2017 EIF (European Commission 2017b). A 

complete description of each individual principle can be found in the 2017 EIF.   

24 

 
 
                                                            
4)  Reusability means that public administrations confronted with a problem seek to benefit from 
the work of others by looking at what is available, assessing its usefulness or relevance to the 
problem  at  hand,  and  where  appropriate,  adopting  solutions  that  have  proven  their  value 
elsewhere.  

5)  Technological neutrality refers to the fact that when establishing European public services, 
public administrations should focus on functional needs and defer decisions on technology as 
long as possible in order to minimise technological dependencies. Also, it refers to the need 
for  public  administrations  to  provide  access  and  reuse  of  their  public  services  and  data 
irrespective of specific technologies or products. A final aspect refers to the easy transfer of 
data among different systems to support the free movement of data. This requirement relates 
to  data  portability,  which  is  the  ability  to  move  and  reuse  data  easily  among  different 
applications and systems, which becomes even more challenging in cross-border scenarios. 

6)  User-centricity refers  to the need to  consider the needs of users when determining which 
public services should be provided and how they should be delivered. Potential requirements 
refer to the need for a multi-channel service delivery approach, a single point of contact, the 
systematic collection, assessment and use of feedback in the design of new public services 
and the improvement of existing services, the adoption of a once only approach (in line with 
the applicable legislation) and the provision of the minimal amount of information necessary 
to obtain a public service. 

7)  Inclusion is about enabling everyone to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by 
new technologies to access and make use of European public services, overcoming social and 
economic divides and exclusion. Accessibility ensures that people with disabilities, the elderly 
and other disadvantaged groups can use public services at service levels comparable to those 
provided to other citizens. Both principles should be part of the entire development lifecycle 
of a European public service in terms of design, information content and delivery.  

8)  Security and Privacy entails that citizens and businesses must be confident that when they 
interact with public authorities they are doing so in a secure and trustworthy environment 
and in full compliance with relevant regulations. Public administrations must guarantee the 
citizens’  privacy,  and  the  confidentiality,  authenticity,  integrity  and  non-repudiation  of 
information provided by citizens and businesses. 

9)  Multilingualism refers to the fact that European public services can potentially be used by 
anyone  in  any  Member  State.  So,  multilingualism  needs  to  be  carefully  considered  when 
designing  them,  whereby  a  suitable  balance  could  be  that  European  public  services  are 
available in the languages of the expected end-users. 

10) Administrative simplification can help businesses and citizens to reduce the administrative 
burden of complying with EU legislation or national obligations. Digitisation of public services 
should follow the digital-by-default concept as well as the digital-first concept.   

11) Preservation of information refers to the fact that records and information in electronic form 
held by public administrations for the purpose of documenting procedures and decisions must 
be  preserved  and  be  converted,  where  necessary,  to  new  media  when  old  media  become 
obsolete.  Therefore,  formats  should  be  chosen  to  ensure  long-term  accessibility,  including 
preservation of associated electronic signatures or seals. 

12) Assessment of effectiveness and efficiency refers to the fact that the value of interoperable 
European  public  services  should  be  measured,  whereby  the  following  indicators  could  be 
applied:  return  on  investment,  total  cost  of  ownership,  level  of  flexibility  and  adaptability, 
reduced  administrative  burden,  efficiency,  reduced  risk,  transparency,  simplification, 
improved working methods, and level of user satisfaction.  

25 

 
 
Those  twelve  principles  underpin  the  EIF  Conceptual  Model,  as  presented  in  Figure  3.2  -  EIF 
Conceptual  Model.  The  model  “promotes  the  idea  of  interoperability  by  design.  It  means  that  for 
European  public  services  to  be  interoperable,  they  should  be  designed  in  accordance  with  the 
proposed model and with certain interoperability and reusability requirements in mind” (European 
Commission 2017b).  

An important point to refer to at this stage, after presenting the twelve principles, and making a first 
reference  to  the  conceptual  model,  is  the  focus  on  European  public  services.  Indeed,  whereas 
interoperability  –  as  discussed  in  3.3.1.  Concept  of  Interoperability  –  refers  only  to  “interact[ing] 
towards mutually beneficial goals”, it has to be underlined that the EIF is focused on interoperability 
from a service delivery perspective. This is a crucial element to take into account when further defining 
the meaning of the concept of the EIF4SCC, as the Framework will also be focused on the interoperable 
delivery  of  public  services  at  and/or  by  local  administrations,  potentially  in  combination  with  non-
public administration actors. Indeed, the overall objective of local administrations is the offering and 
delivery of services to end-users.  

Those public services, which can be described as “services offered by a public organisation, on the 
basis of a legal obligation, (partially) financed by public means, in a monopolised environment, thereby 
serving  the  general  interest”  (van  Montfort  2008;  Willems  and  Van  Dooren  2013).  Those  public 
services  can  be  delivered  by  public  administrations  but  can  also  be  delivered  by  non-public 
administration  actors  on  the  request  of  a  local  public  administration.  Think  thereby  of  private 
companies,  public-private  collaborations  and  partnerships,  non-profit  collaborations  organised  by 
non-state actors etc. Three types of public services can thereby be distinguished, based on the delivery 
aspect:  (1)  the  public  service  can  be  delivered  by  (a)  public  organisation(s)  entirely,  (2)  the  public 
service can be delivered by a mix of (a) public organisation(s) and outside contracts, and (3) the public 
service  can  be  delivered  on  the  basis  of  a  complete  contracting  out  (based  on  Warner  and  Hefetz 
2008). Besides those public services, there are also non-public services, which can be described as 
“services  offered  by  non-public  sector  organisations,  such  as  businesses,  on  the  basis  of  market 
activities, financed by private means, in a market-driven environment, thereby serving commercial 
interest” (van Montfort 2008; Willems and Van Dooren 2013). Those non-public services do not fall 
within the scope of this study.  

The conceptual model is, besides the twelve underlying principles also build on four interoperability 
layers  and  the  “integrated  public  service  governance”.  Below  the  figure  those  five  aspects  will  be 
explained.   

Figure 3.2 - EIF Conceptual Model 

Source: European Commission (n.d.) 

26 

 
 
 
1)  Legal interoperability “is about ensuring that organisations operating under different legal 
frameworks,  policies  and  strategies  are  able  to  work  together.  This  might  require  that 
legislation does not block the establishment of European public services within and between 
Member States and that there are clear agreements about how to deal with differences in 
legislation across borders, including the option of putting in place new legislation” (European 
Commission 2017b). 

2)  Organisational interoperability “refers to the way in which public administrations align their 
business  processes,  responsibilities  and  expectations  to  achieve  commonly  agreed  and 
mutually beneficial goals” (European Commission 2017b). 

3)  Semantic interoperability “ensures that the precise format and meaning of exchanged data 
and  information  is  preserved  and  understood  throughout  exchanges  between  parties” 
(European  Commission  2017b).  Semantic  interoperability  includes  the  aspect  of  semantic 
interoperability and the aspect of syntactic interoperability.  

4)  Technical  interoperability  “covers  the  applications  and  infrastructures  linking  systems  and 

services” (European Commission 2017b).  

5)  Integrated  Public  Service  Governance  refers  to  the  meta-level.  Indeed,  whereas  the  four 
identified  layers  (legal,  organisational,  semantic  and  technical)  all  need  to  be  taken  into 
account when developing (or re-developing) a particular public service, the integrated public 
service governance looks  at the overarching governance environment in which the various 
public services are offered by the public administration. Integrated Public Service Governance 
is  focused  and  oriented  “towards  the  definition  of  organisational  structures,  roles  & 
responsibilities and the decision-making process for the stakeholders involved” as well as the 
“imposition  of 
such  as  building  blocks,  external 
information/services, a change management plan and a business continuity/disaster recovery 
plan  (European  Commission  2017b).  Integrated  Public  Service  Governance  ensures  that 
interoperability can be achieved within the individual public services, that interoperability can 
be guaranteed, and that there is interoperability between the different public services. This 
aspect  of  the  EIF  is  of  crucial  importance  for  the  overall  user-satisfaction  (European 
Commission 2017b).   

requirements” 

for  aspects 

3.3.1.3. Other Interoperability Perspectives at EU Level  

Besides the EIF, which is recognised by the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 as the guarantee 
for a common understanding of interoperability, a number of related and coordinated interoperability 
initiatives exist at EU level. Two thematic interoperability approaches are discussed to increase the 
understanding on the interoperability layers explained in the previous section. The first one is related 
to  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  the  subsequent  initiatives  (European  Commission  2016a;  European 
Parliament and Council 2007). The second thematic interoperability approach that is discussed is the 
eHealth European Interoperability Framework.  

3.3.1.3.1. Spatial Data and Interoperability  

The INSPIRE Directive of 2007 was intended – and continues to be intended – to lead to an increased 
interoperability of spatial data and the services build on this spatial data. The INSPIRE Directive is as 
such  a  thematically  oriented  example  of  interoperability,  which  made  use  of  a  legally  binding 
instrument.  Not  only  did  the  INSPIRE  Directive  lead  to  a  focus  on  semantic  or  technical 
interoperability, but as demonstrated by Chantillon, Crompvoets, and Peristeras (2017) it also led to 
rethinking  of  governance  structures,  and  subsequently  of  the  required  legal  instruments  and 
legislation (Chantillon et al. 2018).  

The different interoperability layers identified in the EIF come back in the INSPIRE Directive, and more 
precisely in the practical implementation of the directive. An example related to an EU Member State 

27 

 
 
is the development of a common address structure in Belgium, between the different regions and the 
federal administration. The definition of what an address is – the semantic interoperability layer – and 
the  development  of  common  address  databases  for  all  involved  partners  –  the  technical 
interoperability  layer  –,  required  the  development  of  a  common  governance  structure  –  the 
organisational interoperability layer and the integrated public service governance – and a rewriting of 
the existing legislation – the legal interoperability layer (Chantillon et al. 2020).  

Also related to the INSPIRE Directive is ELISE, the European Location Interoperability Solutions for e-
Government  action,  which  builds  on  the  ARE3NA  Action  (ISA)  and  the  European  Union  Location 
Framework (EULF). Important to underline here is that ELISE also builds on the different layers of the 
EIF – i.e. legal, organisational, semantic and technical interoperability. It demonstrates that the four 
layers  and  the  integrated  public  service  governance  have  a  fundamental  role.  They  provide  a 
meaningful  structure  to  the  concept  of  interoperability,  and  they  allow  for  a  structuring  of  the 
different actions taken from an interoperability perspective.  

3.3.1.3.2. eHealth and Interoperability  

Whereas  the  INSPIRE  Directive  creates  a  legally  binding  interoperability  approach  in  the  thematic 
policy area of spatial data, a different approach has been taken in the thematic policy area of eHealth. 
Whilst the 2011 Directive on the application of patient’s rights in cross-border healthcare recognises 
and  underlines  the  importance  of  interoperability,  a  less  legalistic  approach  has  been  applied 
(European  Parliament  and  Council  of  Ministers  2011).  This  Directive  created  the  eHealth  Network, 
which  is  “the  main  strategic  and  governance  body  at  EU  Level  to  work  towards  interoperability  of 
cross-border eHealth services” (European Commission 2012b).  

The  2012  eHealth  Action  Plan,  which  covers  the  period  2012-2020,  includes  a  section  on 
interoperability, and recognises thereby that there are four different layers of interoperability – legal, 
organisational, semantic and technical (European Commission 2012b). This is in line with the general 
EIF (European Commission 2017b). A 2013 study commissioned by the European Commission, which 
developed an eHealth European Interoperability Framework, defined also interoperability layers. The 
comparative approach applied in the study made the authors conclude that the same interoperability 
layers as those included in the general EIF, also apply to the domain of eHealth. Interesting in this 
study is also the focus on the principles. The authors started from the principles included in the EIF 
and  selected  eight  principles  to  be  included  in  the  eHealth  European  Interoperability  Framework. 
Those  principles  are  the  following:  (1)  security  and  privacy,  (2)  transparency,  (3)  preservation  of 
information,  (4)  reusability,  (5)  technological  neutrality  and  adaptability,  (6)  openness,  (7)  patient 
centricity and (8) use case approach (Van Langenhove et al. 2013).  

The eHealth Network, which is responsible for the interoperability of eHealth services and consists of 
EU  Member  State  officials,  Norway  and  the  European  Commission,  further  refined  the  eHealth 
European Interoperability Framework in 2015. The results of their work is presented in Table 3.4. As 
can be seen in the table, the original approach taken in the general EIF, and also taken in the 2013 
study on the eHealth European Interoperability Framework is further refined. The model, with four 
layers, is replaced by a model with six layers. The organisational interoperability layers is replaced by 
the layer policy and the layer care process. Also the technical interoperability layer is replaced by the 
layer  applications  and  the  layer  IT  infrastructure.  Furthermore,  the  legal  interoperability  layer  is 
renamed  into  legal  and  regulatory  layer,  and  the  semantic  interoperability  layer  is  renamed  into 
information layer (eHealth Network 2015).  

28 

 
 
 
 
Table 3.4 - eHealth Network European Interoperability Framework compared with 2010 European 
Interoperability Framework 

2010 European Interoperability Framework 

eHealth Network European Interoperability 
Framework 

Legal 

Organisational 

Semantic 

Technical 

Legal and regulatory 

Policy 

Care process 

Information 

Applications 

IT Infrastructure 

Source: eHealth Network (2015) 

The reason for splitting both the organisational interoperability layer and the technical interoperability 
layer  into  two  layers,  lies  in  the  fact  that  there  are  different  actors  involved  with  different 
responsibilities (eHealth Network 2015).  

The following description is given to the revised organisational and technical layers:  

•  Policy: “Contracts and agreements between organisations have to be made. The purpose and 
value of the collaboration must be set. Trust and responsibilities between the organisations 
are formalised on the Policy level. In governance documents the governance of collaboration 
is anchored.” (eHealth Network 2015) 

•  Care process: “Specific care processes are analysed and aligned, resulting in integrated care 
pathways  and  shared  workflows.  This  level  handles  the  tracking  and  management  of  the 
workflow processes. The shared workflow prescribes which information is needed in order to 
deliver the integrated care.” (eHealth Network 2015) 

•  Applications: “Agreements are made about the way import and export of medical information 
are  handled  by  the  healthcare  information  systems.  The  technical  specification  of  how 
information  is  transported  is  at  this  level  (communication  standards).  The  information 
systems must be able to export and import using these communication standards. Another 
aspect in this level is the integration and processing of exchanged information in user-friendly 
applications.” (eHealth Network 2015) 

• 

IT  Infrastructure:  “The  generic  communication  and  network  protocols  and  standards,  the 
storage,  backup,  and  the  database  engines  are  on  this  level.  It  contains  all  the  ‘generic’ 
interoperability standards and protocols.” (eHealth Network 2015) 

Splitting those two layers into separate layers can also be highly relevant for the development of the 
EIF4SCC, as this Smart City (and Community) environment also involves different actors with different 
responsibilities. Indeed, the actor environment has a higher degree of heterogeneity than the public 
administration context for which the general EIF was (and is) developed. This insight will be useful for 
defining the meaning of the EIF4SCC.   

3.3.1.4. Literature Review Insights 

As indicated by Darmois et al. (2018), “a layered approach to interoperability has become the accepted 
paradigm for the description of systems (and this is also true for IoT systems) with a specific focus on 
four layers”. This is a highly relevant statement and confirms the importance of the layered approach 
to interoperability  that is  applied by and in the  EIF. Interesting is the fact  that the layers  to which 
Darmois et al. (2018) refer include organisational, semantic, syntactic and technical interoperability. 

29 

 
 
Indeed, legal interoperability is missing. This is surprising given the important role that legislation can 
play in the further development of services.  

Other authors such as Bareño et al. (2017), Fortino et al. (2018) and Gyrard and Serrano (2016) do also 
recognise the importance of the layered approach, and also recognise the four layers as formulated 
by the EIF. Also the European Commission (2018) recognised the importance of the layered approach 
in its proposal for the Digital Europe Programme (2021-2027) by stating that “interoperability is to be 
understood in a broad sense, spanning from technical to legal layers […]”.  

Other authors take a different approach to interoperability, but thereby only take a data perspective on 
interoperability. Robert et al. (2017) for example understands interoperability from a layered perspective, 
and refer to the access layer, find layer, share layer and compose layer. Brutti et al. (2019) take a similar 
perspective, and focus on three layers: the acquisition layer, the data aggregation layer and the application 
layer.  However,  interoperability  is  here  approached  from  a  data  perspective,  and  does  not  take  into 
account the other potential perspectives in which interoperability can be highly useful.  

On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that interoperability can be defined, in light of this study, as  

“the ability of organisations and individuals to interact towards mutually beneficial goals, 
involving the sharing of information and knowledge between these organisations and 
individuals, through the business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data 
between their ICT systems, including IoT.” 

whereby  there  are 
interoperability,  organisational 
layers, 
interoperability,  semantic  interoperability  and  technical  interoperability,  and  the  overarching 
governance required for the coordination between the different involved actors.  

interoperability 

legal 

four 

i.e. 

Co-creation Workshop Input in terms of the interoperability concept: 

•  Regarding  the  definition  of  interoperability,  the  city  experts  think  that  the  concept  has  been 
mainly  focused  on  technology  and  technical  content.  The  concept  should  be  more  inclusive, 
consider  different  systems  and  it  should  be  aligned  with  the  EU  needs.  The  definition  of 
interoperability also needs to be aligned between the different governmental levels. 

•  According to the city experts, it is needed to improve the exchange of data and information. This 
should  consider  the  legal  framework  and  ensure  an  EU-wide  approach.  The  reality  of  local 
administrations is different from their national government.  

•  The  city  experts  underlined  the  need  to  have  a  clear  understanding  of  what  interoperability 
means. It is more complex than seamless data sharing and complying with standards. Standards 
are useful to have but they are not always transferable or understandable by some public servants. 
Therefore,  there  is  a  need  for  a  holistic  view  that  includes  all  layers  or  dimensions  of 
interoperability.  It  is  also  important  to  simplify  the  meaning  of  interoperability  and  to  avoid 
technicalities, that only experts can understand. 

The following topics are the main concerns for the city experts:  

•  Once only principle 

•  Simplification, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency 

•  Knowledge: sharing, reusability 

•  Ecosystem: dialogue, cooperation 

•  Services: faster (speed), user-friendly, better, less costs 

•  Governance: better, cooperative 

•  Data: open source, EU APIs 

30 

 
 
3.3.2. Concept of a Smart City and Community  

3.3.2.1. Concept of a Smart City and Community  

After presenting in a detailed manner the concept of interoperability, it is now necessary to focus on 
the concept of a Smart City and Community. The European Commission does not provide an official 
standardised definition but has a working definition of a Smart City. It is described as follows:  

“a place where traditional networks and services are made more efficient with the use of digital 
and telecommunication technologies for the benefit of its inhabitants and business.” (European 
Commission n.d.) 

In contrast to the concept of interoperability, there is not a single recurrent definition in the academic 
and grey literature on what a Smart City precisely is. Indeed, there are many different descriptions 
available and some authors do not define the concept at all. Yet, there are a number of aspects from 
the literature review which require some attention and that have been summarised into five points 
here.  A  first  point  refers  to  the  use  of  technology,  sometimes  referred  to  in  the  literature  as 
information  and  communication  technology,  sometimes  just  as  (digital)  technology.  Most  of  the 
authors refer to the importance of technology for a Smart City. Not all authors do however refer to it, 
such as Borsekova et al. (2018). Other authors also argue that besides the use of technology, there is 
an important link to be made with the physical capital and resources that are available in the local 
administration (Bosch et al. 2017).  

A second point to be discussed is the objectives of a Smart City (and Community). There are a number 
of objectives that are recurrent in the literature, such as the focus on the improved economic well-
being  of  the  local  administration,  the  improved  quality  of  life  of  the  citizens,  the  improved 
environmental  sustainability,  and  the  improved  efficiency  and  competitiveness  of  the  local 
administration. This last objective can also be connected to the improved economic well-being.   

A third aspect that comes back in the literature is the inclusion of citizens and other stakeholders in 
the development and management of services, via co-creation and co-production.6 Authors such as  
Desmarchelier, Djellal, and Gallouj (n.d), Peoples (2018), Simonofski (2017) and Simonofski, Snoeck, 
and Vanderose (2019) refer to citizen participation to improve the overall service delivery of the local 
administration.  Also  the  different  tools  and  toolboxes  developed  for  the  inclusion  of  citizens  and 
stakeholders in the development and management of services points to the important role which is 
considered  for  those  actors  (U4IoT  n.d.;  UNaLab  n.d.).  And  finally,  also  the  Join  Boost  Sustain 
Declaration (2019) refers to the importance of “co-creation of digital solutions” (Living-in.EU 2019). 

A fourth point refers to data and information. Only some authors refer to the importance of data and 
information,  underlining  the  growing  amount  of  data  which  is  present  in  a  local  administrative 
context. Interesting is the fact that there is however a lack of attention or focus on the variety of data 
that is available in a local administration (Consoli et al. 2017). The focus on data and information in 
describing what a Smart City is, is however limited. What is nevertheless important for a Smart City is 
the availability of data.  

A final point to mention here is the fact that two authors made also a reference to interoperability in 
their work on Smart Cities. Cecílio, Caldeira, and Wanzeller (2018) refers to a Smart City as  “a […] city 
where heterogeneous utility systems and sub-systems are able to communicate with each other to 
operate in an integrated manner”, and Perboli et al. (2014) state that a smart city is built on “a holistic 
vision […] providing interoperability and coordination between […] several sectors”. For those authors, 
interoperability  is  a  precondition  to  speak  of  a  Smart  City,  however,  this  is  not  the  case  for  most 

6 It has to be underlined that the development and management of services requires policy-making. The inclusion of citizens 
and other stakeholders in the development and management of services, as such also include the possibility to include 
those actors in the overall policy-making process.  

31 

 
 
                                                            
authors.  Indeed,  developing  a  Smart  City  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  Smart  City  is 
interoperable. In a Smart City there is data available from various sources and in different domains. 
This data, and those different domains, are not necessarily interoperable with each other. Making the 
Smart City interoperable, is as such a working point and the interoperability between the data, and 
the different domains, will make the development of the Smart City more successful.  

Based  on  the  definition  of  Smart  City  applied  by  the  European  Commission  and  the  five  points 
discussed earlier, the following working definition for Smart City is suggested:  

“a place governed by local administrations where innovative services are (co) developed and/or 
offered with stakeholders using digital and telecommunication technologies for the benefit of 
citizens and businesses.” 

The following points have been modified in the definition:  

•  To the words a place, it was decided to add governed by local administrations. This change 
allows to underline the importance of the location, while recognising at the same time the 
role  played  by  local  administrations.  Indeed,  local  administrations  are  responsible  for  the 
place  and  do  govern  it.  The  local  administration  concept  can  include  both  cities  and 
communities. Also, it is necessary to underline in this respect the addition of stakeholders. 
The  local  administration  does  not  necessarily  act  alone.  Stakeholders,  within  a  city  or 
community,  play  an  important  role  in  (co)  developing  and/or  offering  services.  This  new 
perspective permits to frame the definition into the “integrated public service governance” 
layer which focuses on a meta-level of governance that contains various governance aspects, 
including multi-level governance structures. 

•  To the word develop, the prefix co was added to emphasize the relevance of co-production 
aspects in the Smart City and Community.  Authors such as  Desmarchelier, Djellal, and Gallouj 
(n.d),  Peoples  (2018),  Simonofski  (2017)  and  Simonofski,  Snoeck,  and  Vanderose    (2019) 
highlight this aspect as well as the Join Boost Sustain Declaration (2019). This addition allows 
the explicit inclusion of citizens and other stakeholders in the development and management 
of services. 

•  Traditional networks and services is replaced by innovative services are (co)developed and/or 
offered as this puts stronger focus on the service (co)development and offering aspect in the 
work  of  local  administrations.  Also,  using  the  concept  traditional  could  be  read  as  if  the 
networks  and  services  are  non-digitalised.  However,  already  digitalised  services  can 
potentially benefit from the use of digital and telecommunication technologies.  

•  Made  more  efficient  has  been  replaced  by  innovative  as  innovative  allows  for  a  broader 
appreciation of the positive effects of the use of digital and telecommunication technologies 
on the (co)development and/or offering of services, than only making them more efficient. As 
indicated  by  the  work  of  Bannister  and  Connolly  (2014)  and  Chantillon,  Crompvoets,  and 
Peristeras (2020), the variety of public values on which a public administration can focus is 
broader than just efficiency. 

•  A final modification is related to the target audience. In the original definition the focus lies 
on inhabitants and business, while the literature review showed that there is broad variety of 
actors (citizens, residents, workers, tourists, academia, businesses etc.) for whom innovative 
services can be (co)developed. In line with the project objective, the local administration and 
the  stakeholders  are  mainly  targeting  their  services  to  citizens  and  businesses.  In  order  to 
provide clarity, it was therefore decided to replace inhabitants and business with citizens and 
businesses.  

32 

 
 
As there is a wide variety in what a Smart City can precisely entails, it has been decided to create a 
classification  on  the  basis  of  variables  which  are  connected  to  the  Smart  City  definition.  This 
classification can act as a demarcation of the EIF4SCC and is presented in the next section.  

3.3.2.2. Classification of Smart City & Community Interoperability Variables  

In order to define the EIF4SCC concept, a classification of the recurrent variables was needed. This 
classification, based on five identified variables, ensures that the strong variation that can exist in a 
Smart  City  can  be  taken  into  account  when  developing  the  EIF4SCC.  On  the  basis  of  the  literature 
review, five different variables were identified. Those five variables are all related to the definition of 
a Smart City (and Community), presented in the previous section.   

The  classification,  presented  in  Table  3.5  –  Smart  City  &  Community  Interoperability  Variables 
Classification, can be found at the end of this section. 

The five variables that structure the classification are the following:  

1.  Variable 1 – Service domain 

2.  Variable 2 – Type of offered service(s) 

3.  Variable 3 – Technologies  

4.  Variable 4 – Data accessibility 

5.  Variable 5 – Smart city and community actors 

The five variables are all related to the Smart City working definition, via the description of what a 
Smart City is or via the objective of a Smart City: 

“a place governed by local administrations where innovative services are (co) developed and/or 
offered with stakeholders using digital and telecommunication technologies for the benefit of 
citizens and businesses.” 

 This can be clarified by splitting the working definition into several parts:  

1.  “Local administration(s)” The Smart City (and Community), as a place, is governed by a local 
administration. From a European perspective, it can be understood as the Local Administrative 
Units  (LAUs),  which  are  a  subdivision  of  NUTS  3  –  i.e.  the  regions  (Eurostat  2020b).  The 
concept “A place” is not included in the classification as a variable (see Non-included variable 
– Size).  

2.  “Innovative  services”  (new  services  and/or  improvement  of  services)  is  referred  to  via 
Variable 2 – Type of Offered Service(s) focusing on one or more service domain(s) (Variable 1 
–  Service  domain).  These  services  can  be  developed  by  public  and  private  actors  and  co-
creation processes, including the users, can be applied. 

3.  “(Co) developed and/or offered with stakeholders” is referred to via Variable 5 – Smart City 
Actors, as the actors are responsible for taking actions to improve the offered services. Note 
that the “users” are also referred to in the working definition. Also, Variable 3 – Technologies 
and Variable 4 – Data accessibility can be related to this part of the working definition.  

4.  “Digital and telecommunication technologies” is referred to via Variable 3 – Technologies.   

5.  “Citizens and businesses” is referred to via Variable 5 – Smart City Actors, and in particular 

the Sub-variable 5.4 – Users.  

33 

 
 
 
Those five variables, and the related subgroups of each variable, have been defined on the basis of 
the  literature  review.  Below  each  of  the  variables,  and  the  related  aspects,  are  defined  and  the 
approach on how they were selected is explained.  

3.3.2.2.1. Variable 1 – Service Domain  

The first variable that has been included is Service Domain. The service domain refers to the topics 
on which the Smart City actors can focus in a Smart City. From an ideal perspective, a Smart City is 
focused on all five domains, but since a Smart City development is an incremental process, it is possible 
that a city or community needs to make certain choices regarding the domains on which it will focus. 
Since a Smart City consists of various Smart City projects, it is possible that a project is focused on one 
or more of those domains.  

On the basis of the literature review, six Smart City (or Community) domains could be identified: Smart 
economy,  smart  people,  smart  governance,  smart  environment,  smart  living  and  smart  mobility. 
Although  there  is,  with  a  few  exceptions,  a  general  tendency  to  devote  insufficient  attention  to 
defining the precise meaning of those six dimension, an overall agreement exists in the literature that 
a Smart City (or Community) is built on those six dimensions (Albino, Berardi, and Dangelico 2015; 
European Parliament 2014; Giffinger  et al. 2007; Van Der Hoogen, Scholtz, and Calitz 2019; Sharifi 
2019, 2020).  

Those  service  domains  can  be  defined  as  follows,  based  on  Albino,  Berardi,  and  Dangelico  (2015), 
Giffinger et al. (2007) and Van Der Hoogen, Scholtz, and Calitz (2019):  

•  Smart  economy  is  related  to  regional  competitiveness,  and  is  focused  on  innovation, 
entrepreneurship spirit, trademarks, productivity and flexibility of the labour market as well 
as the integration of in the (inter-)national market  

•  Smart people is related to human and social capital, and is focused on the level of qualification 
or education of the citizens, the quality of social interactions regarding integration and public 
life and the openness towards the outer world.  

•  Smart  governance  is  related  to  participation  of  society  members,  and  is  focused  on 
participation in decision-making, public and social services for citizens, the functioning of the 
administration and the transparency of governance.  

•  Smart environment is related to natural resources, and is focused on the natural conditions, 
pollutions, resource management and the efforts on environmental protection. It also covers 
the need to address climate change.  

•  Smart living is related to quality of life, and is focused on aspects such as cultural facilities, 
health  conditions,  individual  safety,  housing  quality,  tourism  etc.  Some  studies  consider 
education to be part of this dimension, which is in general however classified as being part of 
smart people.  

•  Smart  mobility  is  related  to  transport  and  ICT  economics,  and  is  focused  on  the  local  and 
(inter)  national  accessibility,  the  availability  of  ICT  and  the  availability  of  a  modern, 
sustainable, innovative and safe transport system.  

3.3.2.2.2. Variable 2 – Type of Offered Service(s) 

The second variable consists of the type of service that is developed or co-developed, maintained and 
offered in a Smart City. Two types of services can be distinguished on the basis of the literature review: 
public services and non-public services. The delivery of the public service can happen in different ways, 
whereby three different types of delivery can be distinguished. Since various Smart City projects can 
exists, a combination of both public and non-public services is possible in one Smart City. 

On the basis of the literature review, the two types of services can be defined as follows:  

34 

 
 
•  Public service: A service offered by a public organisation, on the basis of a legal obligation, 
financed by public means, in a monopolised environment, thereby serving the general interest 
(van Montfort 2008; Pollitt 2013; Willems and Van Dooren 2013).  

o  Type A – Public service delivered with public employees entirely (Warner and Hefetz 

2008). 

o  Type B – Public service delivered with a mix of public employees and outside contracts 

(Warner and Hefetz 2008). 

o  Type C – Public service delivered via a complete contracting out (Warner and Hefetz 

2008).  

•  Non-public service: A service offered by non-public sector organisations, such as businesses, 
on the basis of market activities, financed by private means, in a market-driven environment, 
thereby serving commercial interest (van Montfort 2008; Willems and Van Dooren 2013).  

3.3.2.2.3. Variable 3 – Technologies  

The  third  variable  of  a  Smart  City  (and  Community)  is  the  Technologies  variable,  which  refers  to 
technical  components  that  can  deliver  a  (partial)  solution  in  the  development,  maintenance  and 
offering of services in a Smart City (and Community). Listing those Information and Communication 
Building Blocks is a challenging exercise given the constant evolution of technologies that can be used 
in a Smart City (and Community). As with the other variables, it is possible that various Smart City (and 
Community) projects exist in a Smart City (and Community) and that the technology used in those 
projects is different from one project to another. Also, the same technology can be used in several 
Smart City (and Community) projects.  

On the basis of the literature review, a number of technologies have been identified as being relevant 
for a Smart City (and Community) context. For each of the technologies a description is provided. It 
should  be  underlined  that  a  common  and  constant  recurring  aspect  in  the  literature  is  the  lack  of 
agreed  definitions  for  each  of  those  technologies.  For  reasons  of  clarity,  a  description  has  been 
included  for  each  of  the  technologies,  but  it  has  to  be  underlined  that  based  on  different  sources 
different descriptions of those technologies can be found.  

The  following  list  of  technologies  has  been  identified  as  being  relevant  for  a  Smart  City  (and 
Community) context. Given the constant evolution of technologies, and the lack of disagreement in 
the literature on the possibility relevant technologies in a Smart City (and Community) environment, 
it was decided to include an indicative and non-exhaustive list of technologies. This indicative and non-
exhaustive list is based on the appearance of those different technologies in the literature review:  

•  Artificial  intelligence:  Refers  to  the  capability  of  a  computer  system  to  show  human-like 
intelligent  behaviour  characterised  by  certain  core  competencies,  including  perception, 
understanding, action, and learning (Wirtz, Weyerer, and Geyer 2019).  

•  Big  data:  Refers  to  data  that  follows  four  criteria,  i.e.  speed  (Velocity),  Volume,  diversity 
(Variety) and quality (Veracity). As Höchtl, Parycek, and Schöllhammer (2016) underline, there 
is no single agreed definition in the literature.  

•  Blockchain: Refers to a range of general purpose technologies to exchange information and 

transact digital assets in distributed networks (Ølnes, Ubacht, and Janssen 2017).  

•  Cloud computing: Refers to a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network 
access  to  a  shared  pool  of  configurable  computing  resources  […]  that  can  be  rapidly 
provisioned  and  released  with  minimal  management  effort  or  service  provider  interaction 
(Caithness, Drescher, and Wallom 2017). 

35 

 
 
• 

•  Digital twins: Refers to the virtual replacement of a physical object with communication ability 
that  acts  like  a  smart  object  through  the  Internet  of  Things  (Bazaz,  Lohtander,  and  Varis 
2019).7 
Integration  platforms:  Refers  to  technology  that  allows  to  assemble  and  exchange 
information represented in different data models and available data sources (Górski 2012).  
Internet of Things: Refers to the inter-networking paradigm enabled by technology […] which 
provides  a  seamless  connectivity  between  physical  and  virtual  objects  to  facilitate  the 
development  of  intelligent  services  and  applications  with  self-configuring  capabilities 
(Čolaković and Hadžialić 2018). 

• 

•  Mobile applications: Refers to tools that are tailored to a mobile device (such as a smartphone 
or a tablet (not a laptop)), that are integrated into an existing IT infrastructure, that are task-
oriented and focused on a clear and limited scope of functionality (Holl and Elberzhager 2019). 
•  Other technologies: Refers to technologies such as micro- and nanotechnology, fintech etc. It 
also refers to other emerging technologies which have not yet received detailed attention. 
Also,  given  the  ongoing  developments  from  a  technological  perspective,  it  was  deemed 
necessary to include this general and broad category.  

3.3.2.2.4. Variable 4 – Data Accessibility  

The fourth variable is the data accessibility, refers to the degree to which data is accessible for a user. 
On  the  basis  of  the  literature  review,  and  in  line  with  both  the  open  data  initiatives  and  the  data 
protection  initiatives  of  the  European  Commission,  the  Council  of  Ministers  and  the  European 
Parliament,  it  was  decided  to  include  data  accessibility  instead  of  the  different  types  of  data 
(Bannerjee  et  al.  2016;  European  Parliament  and  Council  of  Ministers  2016,  2019;  Sharifi  2020; 
Simonofski et al. 2017). Indeed, the differentiation that exists in the accessibility of different types of 
data is of higher importance for a Smart City (and Community) then the types of data that are available 
in a Smart City (and Community).  

The approach for describing the data accessibility can differ on the basis of the actors involved. Those 
actors  can  be  public  sector  organisations  (“Government”  –  G),  non-public  sector  organisations 
(“Businesses” – B) and individuals (“Citizens” – C).  As indicated by the High-Level Expert Group on 
Business-to-Government  Data  Sharing  (2020)  business  does  not  only  refer  to  private  sector 
organisations  but  also  to,  for  example,  non-profit  organisations.  Those  three  groups  of  actors  can 
share data between and among them, leading to a number of data accessibility relations: G2G, G2B, 
G2C, B2B, B2G, B2C, C2C, C2G, C2B. From a EIF4SCC perspective, all the different relationships are 
important.  

Although, each of those relationships can be defined in detailed, from a more general data accessibility 
perspective, the following classification is can be considered very relevant (BSI 2017):  

•  Closed data: This data has been restricted for use. It has been designated as information that 
is not permitted to be shared. Government data that can be considered as closed data, is for 
example data on payment details of citizens within a specific services, such as their council tax 
(BSI 2017).  

•  Shared data: This is data which exists, and which cannot be considered as open or closed data 

(BSI 2017).  

7 Note that a recent study of the concept Digital Twins found more than 29 different definitions of the concept of Digital 
Twins  (Barricelli,  Casiraghi,  and  Fogli  2019).  The  physical  object,  which  is  virtually  replaced,  can  be  part  of  a  city  or 
community, and as such be part of the Smart City or Community.  

36 

 
 
                                                            
•  Open data: This is data which is available in “an open format that can be freely used, re-used 
and shared by anyone for any purpose” (BSI 2017; European Parliament and Council of the 
European Union 2019).  

Looking specifically to this classification from a business perspective, allows to make the connection 
between  this  classification  and  the  classification  developed  by  the  High-Level  Expert  Group  on 
Business-to-Government  Data  Sharing  (2020).  The  High-Level  Expert  Group  makes  a  distinction 
between five types of data accessibility, from a business perspective:  

•  Type 1: A data provider conducts all the data analysis in-house and then shares with public 
authorities,  or  the  general  public,  the  insights  that  emerge  from  that  analysis  (High-Level 
Expert Group on Business-to-Government Data Sharing 2020).  

•  Type 2: A data provider can host external researchers within its network to analyse data and 
report  findings  publicly  (High-Level  Expert  Group  on  Business-to-Government  Data  Sharing 
2020).  

•  Type 3: A data provider works with other data providers to share data or insights derived from 
the data amongst themselves, and also with public authorities (High-Level Expert Group on 
Business-to-Government Data Sharing 2020).  

•  Type 4: A data provider shares data with trusted third parties (High-Level Expert Group on 

Business-to-Government Data Sharing 2020).  

•  Type 5: A data provider allows direct access to some of its datasets (High-Level Expert Group 

on Business-to-Government Data Sharing 2020). 

Closed data is aligned with Type 1, Shared data is aligned with Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4, and Open 
data is aligned with Type 5.  

In  a  Smart  City  context,  data  can  however  also  be  possessed  by  other  actors  then  organisations. 
Indeed, also individuals can possess data. Also, this data can be shared, and as such be accessible in 
varying degrees, whereby and in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it is up 
to the individual to decide with whom the data is shared. The same general categorisation can – in 
theory  –  thereby  apply,  the  individual  can  decide  to  allow  for  a  public,  private  or  restricted  data 
accessibility for third parties. Yet, in reality, it has to be recognised that the situation for individuals is 
more complex, as the individual will often not have much room for negotiation on how accessible its 
data is.  

3.3.2.2.5. Variable 5 – Smart City and Community Actors  

A final, and fifth variable are the Smart City and Community Actors. These are the actors that can be 
involved in the development, maintenance and use of a Smart City (and Community), and its related 
services. The literature review demonstrated that a high number of actors can be involved in a Smart 
City (and Community), or in the Smart City (and Community) projects that constitute the Smart City 
(and  Community).  On  the  basis  of  the  literature  review,  the  following  groups  of  Smart  City  and 
Community Actors can be distinguished (Van Der Hoogen, Scholtz, and Calitz 2019):  

•  Governors: Governors are responsible for creating a vision, to allocate resources, to provide 

strategic leadership, and to promote networking.8  

•  Developers:  Developers  provide 

innovative  research  and  design  methods,  augment 
knowledge,  manage  knowledge  distribution,  create  suitable  services,  set  small-scale 

8 Van Der Hoogen, Scholtz, and Calitz (2019) labelled this group as “enablers” instead of “governors”. However, as this group 
includes the actors who can take formally and informally binding decision on the Smart City, or the related Smart City 
project, it was decided to rename it to “governors”.  

37 

 
 
                                                            
objectives derived from the vision and learn new practices to produce accessible knowledge 
and to innovate. 9 

•  Users: Users are the beneficiaries of a Smart City and its services. Users can participate in the 
actions of the governors, providers and/or developers, this can happen in both an active and 
passive way. Potential approaches are co-creation and co-production exercises.  

It is important to underline that the three groups of actors will together constitute the ecosystem of 
actors  that  is  active  in  the  Smart  City  (and  Community).  For  each  of  those  three  Smart  City  and 
Community Actors, more detailed subgroups can be distinguished, as can be seen in Table 3.5. Not all 
actors will necessarily have a role in all phases of the Smart City (and Community) development or in 
all Smart City (and Community) projects. Indeed, when there are various Smart City (and Community) 
projects, then the composition of the ecosystem of actors can be different for the various Smart City 
(and Community) projects.  

In each of the three sub-groups, a specific set of actors can be identified:   

•  Governors:  

o  City government (mayor & alderman/women), refers to the political executive power 

within the local administration.  

o  City council, refers to the political legislative power within the local administration. In 
various EU Member States, this will be known as the “local administration assembly”   

o  Other government(s), refers to different and/or higher administrative levels.  
o  Businesses, which refers to commercial organisations active within the territory of the 

local administration.  
o  Administrations,  refers 

administration.  

to 

the  administrative  department(s)  of 

the 

local 

o  Academia,  refers  to  teaching  and  research  institutions,  such  as  universities  or  high 

schools.  

o  Non-profit organisations, refers to organisations striving for a particular social cause 

or advocating a shared point of view, without having a commercial interest. 

•  Developers:  

o  Academia,  refers  to  teaching  and  research  institutions,  such  as  universities  or  high 

schools. 

o  Think tanks/incubators, refers to (an organisation of) experts who provide advice to 

others. 

o  Businesses, refers to commercial organisations active within the territory of the local 

administration. 

o  Administrations,  refers 

administration. 

to 

the  administrative  department(s)  of 

the 

local 

o  Non-profit organisations, refers to organisations striving for a particular social cause 

or advocating a shared point of view, without having a commercial interest. 

•  Users:  

o  Citizens (local), refers to the registered inhabitants of the local administration.  
o  Citizens (national), refers to registered inhabitants of the EU Member State visiting 

the local administration for a short time period.  

o  Citizens (EU), refers to registered inhabitants of other EU Member States visiting the 

local administration for a short time period.  

9 Van Der Hoogen, Scholtz, and Calitz (2019) refer to both “providers” and “developers”. However, given the strong overlap 
between both descriptions as well as between the actors involved in both groups, it was decided to merge them under the 
name “developers”.  

38 

 
 
                                                            
o  Residents, refers to non-registered (and as such  mostly temporarily) inhabitants of 

the local administration, staying for a longer time period.  

o  Workers, refers to those commuting to the local administration from another local 

administration to work.  

o  Think tanks/incubators, refers to (an organisation of) experts who provide advice to 

others.  

o  Businesses, refers to commercial organisations active within the territory of the local 

administration. 

o  Non-profit organisations, refers to organisations striving for a particular social cause 

or advocating a shared point of view, without having a commercial interest. 

o  Academia,  refers  to  teaching  and  research  institutions,  such  as  universities  or  high 

schools. 

o  Tourists, refers to persons travelling for pleasure. 

3.3.2.2.6. Non-included variable – Size  

It is worth to underline that size (referring to the relation between the number of inhabitants and the 
territorial  size,  resulting  in  the  population  density)  has  not  been  included  in  this  classification  as  a 
variable. There are two specific reasons for this. Firstly, there has been, from an academic perspective, 
insufficient  research  on  the  impact  of  size  on  a  Smart  City  (or  Community).  Secondly,  the  limited 
research that has been conducted does not provide conclusive evidence on the need to differentiate 
between local administrations on the basis of their size (Borsekova et al. 2018).  

Although size can be a relevant variable to include in a classification of local administrations, it was 
decided to leave it out of this classification of Smart Cities and Communities. However, disconnecting 
size from the Smart City (and Community) perspective, learns that size (be it from a population or 
territorial perspective) does impact the possibilities and challenges related to a local administration. 
Therefore, it was decided to apply the population size as an indicator for the selection of city experts. 
By including the population size variation in the selection of city experts, the representativeness of 
Europe’s landscape of local administrations can be ensured.   

3.3.2.2.7. Intermediary Conclusion  

This classification of Smart City & Community Interoperability Variables allows to see the broad variety 
that can exist between different Smart Cities and Communities, as well as within one Smart City or 
Community, depending on the different Smart City (and Community) projects that exist within the 
Smart City or Community. Mapping this variation via the five variables, allows to set the boundaries 
of  the  landscape  that  needs  to  be  covered  by  the  EIF4SCC.  Indeed,  the  classification  includes  in  a 
systematic way the variables that need to be taken into account in the EIF4SCC. 

The next section, i.e. 3.3.3.2. EIF4SCC Concept, defines the meaning of the concept. 

39 

 
 
Sub-variable 2.1 - 
Governors 

Sub-variable 2.3 
- Developers 

Sub-variable 2.4 – Users 

Table 3.5 - Smart City & Community Interoperability Variables Classification 

Variable 1 - 
Service 
Domain 

Variable 2 - 
Type of 
Offered 
Service(s) 

Variable 3 – 
Technologies  

Smart 
economy 

Public service – 
Type A 

Artificial 
Intelligence 

Variable 
4 - Data 
Accessibil
ity 

Closed 

Variable 5 - 
Smart City 
and 
Community 
Actors 
Governors 

Smart people  Public service – 

Big data 

Shared 

Developers  

Smart 
governance 

Type B 
Public service – 
Type C 

Blockchain 

Open 

Users  

Smart 
environment 

Non-public 
service 

Cloud 
computing 

City government 
(mayor & 
alderman/women) 
City council 
(Assembly) 
Other 
government(s) 
(different/higher 
administrative 
levels) 
Businesses 

Smart living 

Digital twins 

Administrations 

Smart 
mobility 

Integration 
platforms  
Internet of 
Things 
Mobile 
applications 
Other 
technologies 

Academia 

Non-profit 
organisations 

40 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Academia 

Citizens (local) 

Think 
tanks/Incubators 
Businesses 

Citizens (national) 

Citizens (EU) 

Administrations 

Residents 

Non-profit 
organisations 

Workers 

Think tanks/Incubators 

Businesses 

Non-profit organisations 

Academia 

Tourists 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.3. Connecting Interoperability with Smart Cities (and Communities)  

After having discussed in a detailed manner the concept of interoperability and the concept of a Smart 
City and Community, the two concepts can now be combined (although already some references to 
interoperability were made in the previous section). This will lead to an understanding of the EIF4SCC. 
First,  the  relation  between  Smart  Cities  (and  Communities)  is  further  developed  by  looking  at  the 
reasoning  applied  in  the  literature  on  why  interoperability  is  necessary  in  a  Smart  City  (and 
Community).  

3.3.3.1. Challenges related to Smart Cities (and Communities) and Interoperability 

This section presents a number of challenges identified via the literature review, which demonstrate 
why there is a need for interoperability in a Smart City (and Community). Including this overview allows 
to identify specific elements of interoperability on which the EIF4SCC can/has to focus. As such, this 
overview provides guidance for the work conducted in Task 3. As Sharifi (2019) argues interoperability 
in a Smart City (and Community) is necessary as “cities are 'systems of systems', making connections 
of those systems necessary”.   

The identified challenges, which lead to a required attention for interoperability in a Smart City (and 
Community) are listed in Table 3.6.  

Table 3.6 - Identified challenges requiring interoperability 

Challenge requiring interoperability  

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Integration of services and data at local level, also with regards to privately held data 
that has a potential public interest (Ahn et al. 2016; High-Level Expert Group on 
Business-to-Government Data Sharing 2020; Osimo 2018). 

Connecting the heterogeneous context of a city (Gabrielsen 2017). 

Demolishing the administrative (legal, organisational, semantic, technical) silo’s that 
exist in local administrations (Brutti et al. 2018). 

The devices constituting the so-called IoT are too often functioning as individual silo’s 
and therefore need to be connected, so that communication can be established 
between them (Delgado 2018; Robert et al. 2017) 

Use of old, dependent, and non-standardised technologies blocks the road to better 
service delivery, and need to be rethought based on interoperability (Cecílio, Caldeira, 
and Wanzeller 2018). 

Platforms used by smart city actors can be open or proprietary, but are mostly not 
standardised, making connections difficult or impossible. Changing API’s, without 
sufficient communication, undermine connections (Chaturvedi and Kolbe 2019). 

Risk of vendor lock-in, which undermines technological sovereignty and the potential 
for co-creation with end-users (Living-in.EU 2019). 

Source: Personal research based on the referenced literature. 

Although  those  challenges  might  seem  limited  in  number,  they  have  strong  implications  for  the 
EIF4SCC. Indeed, the identified challenges indicate the need to take into account a number of different 
aspects. In the first place a connection is visible to the different interoperability layers, identified via 
the 2017 EIF. The interoperability in a Smart City (and Community) will not only be relevant from a 
technical point of view, but also – and especially – from an organisational and legal point of view. The 
existing silos within the local public administration, in relation to other local public administrations 
and other levels of public administrations, and in relation to non-public administration actors make it 
difficult to develop Smart Cities and Communities. Secondly, the different types of interactions which 

 
 
 
exist within the public administration, with the non-public administration actors and with the end-
users (such as citizens) have to be taken into account. This is of crucial importance for the co-creation 
(and co-production) of services as well as the availability of data. Without the data of different non-
public sector actors, a Smart City (and Community) can hardly be established. Thirdly, attention need 
to  be  devoted  to  the  importance  of  (public  /  private)  data,  (private)  devices  and  (public)  services 
connectivity. 

The  literature  identified,  besides  the  challenges  which  make  it  necessary  to  increase  the 
interoperability, a number of challenges which can  block  the implementation of interoperability.  A 
first challenge is the existence of historical legacies. Historical legacies, which can range from technical 
up to legal legacies, can block interoperability, and the motivation to work on interoperability (Peoples 
2018; Pradhan 2019). A second challenge is related to IoT, and technology in general. Technology is in 
a  constant  evolution.  This  makes  it  difficult  to  now  already  foresee  which  interoperability 
requirements there will be for the future technologies. This weakness needs to be recognised (Fortino 
et  al.  2018).  A  third  challenge  is  related  to  the  interest  of  stakeholders  to  work  towards  common 
approaches. Indeed, depending on the business model and the related motivation of stakeholders, it 
is possible that they develop specific applications or simulations for a Smart City (and Community) 
context, but are only interested in collecting data for their own purposes. This needs to be taken into 
account as well. A final aspect is related to data privacy and security concerns, resulting from the need 
to act in compliance with the GDPR and the related national legislation, which can potentially block 
the exchange of data between different actors. This can also undermine the interoperability objectives 
of a Smart City (and Community) (Chaturvedi and Kolbe 2019). 

3.3.3.2. The EIF4SCC concept   

In the previous sections of this Report, the meaning of a Smart City (and Community), as well as the 
meaning of interoperability in a Smart City (and Community) have been defined. A Smart City (and 
Community) has been defined as  

“a place governed by local administrations where innovative services are (co) developed and/or 
offered with stakeholders using digital and telecommunication technologies for the benefit of 
citizens and businesses.” 

 and interoperability as  

“the ability of organisations and individuals to interact towards mutually beneficial goals, involving the 
sharing of information and knowledge between these organisations and individuals, through the 
business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data between their ICT systems, including 
IoT.” 

On the basis of those definitions as well as on the 2017 European Interoperability Framework, the 
EIF4SCC can be described as  

“an approach that aims to support local administrations in offering innovative services for the 
benefit of citizens and businesses in an interoperable way.” 

Three  specific  points  need  to  be  made  regarding  this  EIF4SCC  definition.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
important  to  underline  that  when  a  reference  is  made  to  this  definition,  the  above  presented 
definitions of Smart City and interoperability should be also presented. Those three definitions are 
connected with each other and reinforce each other as well.  

Secondly,  concerning  the  services,  it  has  to  be  underlined  that  services  can  be  (co)developed, 
referring  to  both  existing  and  new  services.  Various  types  of  public  services  exist  thereby.  Those 
services  can  be  (co)developed  via  the  use  of  information  and  telecommunication  technologies.  As 
explained in the previous sections, those services can be located in different domains, they can be 

42 

 
 
influenced and/or make use of different types of technology, they can be a variety of actors involved, 
and the types of data used for the service can also vary.   

A third point, which is of particular importance in a Smart City (and Community) environment striving 
towards interoperability of its local public services, is to take into account the diversity of the actors 
active in Smart City (and Community) environment. Although the EIF4SCC is focused on supporting 
local  administrations  in  offering  services  in  an  interoperable  way,  the  interoperability  can  only  be 
developed if the other actors are active in the Smart City (and Community) environment and they are 
also taken into account. Thus, the EIF4SCC targets EU local administration leaders, and thereby takes 
into account the wide variety which exists within a Smart City (and Community). The target audience 
of the Framework is as such narrower than the actors of a Smart City (and Community) environment 
as it is intended to support local administration leaders.  

The EIF4SCC consists of three elements:  

•  Principles underpinning the interoperability behaviour of local administrations,  

• 

Interoperability layers, presented as a model,   

•  Recommendations related to both the principles and the interoperability layers.  

A closer look will now be taken to the first set of principles and layers, which have been identified as 
potentially relevant for the EIF4SCC. Those will then feed into A03.02 Prepare EIF Draft. The below 
presented  principles  and  layers  have  been  identified  on  the  basis  of  the  literature  review.  The 
recommendations  constitute  a  separate  part  of  the  research,  and  will  be  discussed  in  A04.01  EIF 
recommendations  for  policy  makers  in  Smart  Cities  and  Communities,  and  the  related  deliverable 
D04.01.  

Co-creation Workshop Input regarding the concept of the EIF4SCC: 

•  The  city  experts  highlighted  the  need  for  local  administrations  to  be  closer  to  the  national 
government, by taking advantage of standards and data collected from all sectors (including data 
sources and data from public and private entities). There is also a clear need to share concrete use 
cases and practices.  

•  The collaboration between local administrations brings also an added value, as it allows to share 
knowledge and best practices (e.g. think of mobility as a service). The approach taken at the EU 
level  was  mentioned  as  desirable.  Standards  are  also  required,  in  different  domains  and  in 
different services. 

•  The  concept  of  theEIF4SCC  should  explore  the  reality  itself  and  take  into  consideration  the 
operational perspective, focusing on use cases that are understandable by all. For example, there 
is  no  single  Mobility  as  a  Service  (MaaS)  solution  yet  implemented  that  integrates  all  mobility 
services. Interoperability is a concept beyond the “IT systems”, as it is also part of the physical 
environment. For instance, it is not possible to park sharing bikes in different municipalities, simply 
because the physical docks are not designed to be compliant. This example reflects the complexity 
and the need for more standardisation at EU level. The co-creators also identified that standards 
are required for each city domain for those who develop solutions. There is the need to identify 
the main urban platforms, independent from the IoT providers.  
Lastly,  some  city  experts  referred  to  the  importance  of  the  private  sector,  since  local 
administration services are often (co-)managed by the private sector and interoperability of the 
data  they  use  and  generate  is  important  to  better  manage  the  local  administration  through  a 
holistic perspective. 

• 

The following topics are the main concerns for the city experts:  

•  Standards, integration 

•  Principles, recommendations 

43 

 
 
•  Ecosystem: cooperation, collaboration 

•  Technology: IoT, applications, smart services, open data sources, data sharing 

• 

Legal and privacy issues 

•  Citizen centric and quality of life 

3.3.3.2.1. Relevant identified Principles  

3.3.3.2.1.1. Connecting 2017 European Interoperability Framework principles with the literature  

The principles can serve as a fundament of the EIF4SCC. They are as such the main building blocks 
interoperability  framework.  In  3.3.1.2  Concept  of  European 
defining  the  direction  of  the 
Interoperability Framework, the principles underpinning the EIF have been presented. Those principles 
are again presented in Table 3.7, whereby the connection is made to the literature review. From the 
literature review a list of principles was identified and cross-checked with the principles of the EIF. 
Besides this cross-connection that is made between the two sources of data, also other principles have 
been identified. Those are presented underneath Table 3.7.  

The data in Table 3.7 makes clear that some principles have a higher occurrence than other, which 
might  give  an  indication  on  the  importance  of  the  principle  for  the  Smart  City  and  Community 
environment. Principles with a high presence in the literature are for example Transparency, Inclusion 
and accessibility and Security and privacy. Other principles receive less attention, such as Subsidiarity 
and proportionality, or Administrative Simplification. Finally, some principles could not be connected 
to  the  literature  –  i.e.  Multilingualism  and  Preservation  of  information.  Although  the  principle  of 
Multilingualism could not be connected to the literature, it should be underlined that this remains at 
the  local  European  level  as  an  important  principle  to  take  into  account.  Especially  relevant  in  this 
respect is what is mentioned in the EIF on this principle: The public services should be available in the 
language(s) of the expected end-users. This can be the local language, but also other languages – think 
thereby of the languages of the main tourist groups. Of course, regulations concerning the use of local 
languages need to be respected. The principle Preservation of information, which could also not be 
connected to the literature, is of high importance for local administrations too. Although often not 
treated  with  most  attention,  the  archiving  of  information  is  necessary  to  ensure  a  long-term 
accessibility (Chantillon et al. 2017).  

Table 3.7 - Cross-checked Principles 

Principles 

Literature reference 

1 

Subsidiarity and proportionality  

2 

Openness 

3 

Transparency 

European Parliament and Council of the 
European Union (2019)  

Eleftheriadou (2019);  

European Commission (2016b, 2017a);  

European Parliament and Council of the 
European Union (2019)  

Eurocities (2019);  

European Commission (2016b, 2018a);  

Gyrard and Serrano (2016);  

High-Level Expert Group on Business-to-
Government Data Sharing (2020);  

Pye and Schaaf (2018);  

44 

 
 
 
4 

Reusability  

5 

Technological neutrality and data 
portability  

6 

User-centricity  

Pantiru (2019) 

European Commission (2016b);  

European Parliament and Council of the 
European Union (2019);  

Gyrard and Serrano (2016) 

European Commission (2018a) 

European Commission (2016b);  

Osimo (2018);  

Pantiru (2019);  

Tallinn Declaration (2017) 

Eleftheriadou (2019);  

European Commission (2016b);  

Fiorentin (2019);  

7 

Inclusion and accessibility   

Gyrard and Serrano (2016);  

Pye and Schaaf (2018);  

Pantiru (2019); 

Tallinn Declaration (2017) 

Eurocities (2019b, 2019a, 2020);  

European Commission (2016b);  

High-Level Expert Group on Business-to-
Government Data Sharing (2020);  

Kshetri (2017);  

Tallinn Declaration (2017) 

European Commission (2016b);  

8 

Security and privacy  

9  Multilingualism  

10 

Administrative simplification 

Kung (2019);  

11 

Preservation of information  

12 

Assessment of effectiveness and 
efficiency  

Tallinn Declaration (2017) 

Gyrard and Serrano (2016);  

Pantiru (2019);  

URBACT (2013) 

This  cross-checking  of  the  principles  of  the  EIF,  via  the  literature  review,  demonstrates  that  all 
principles  have  a  relevancy  for  the  EIF4SCC.  There  is  only  one  principle  with  a  potentially  lower 
relevance for the EIF4SCC. It is the principle of Subsidiarity and proportionality. Subsidiarity refers to 
the need to take EU decisions as closely as possible to the citizen. Proportionality refers to the fact 
that  EU  actions  are  limited  to  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  EU  Treaties.  The 

45 

 
 
 
 
EIF4SCC is however specifically developed for the administrative level that is the closest to the citizens. 
Therefore, the inclusion of this principle in the EIF4SCC seems unnecessary.  

3.3.3.2.1.2. Principles identified via the literature review  

Besides the cross-checking of the principles of the EIF with the literature, also a number of potentially 
other relevant principles have been identified in the literature. Those can be grouped in three main 
categories: Actors, Skills & education, and Data.  

Concerning  the  Actors,  a  number  of  potentially  relevant  principles  have  been  identified  that  are 
related  to  the  principle  User-centricity,  which  refers  to  considering  the  needs  of  users  when 
determining which public services should be provided and how they should be delivered. A number of 
authors underlines the importance of user-centricity, and more particularly a citizen-centric approach 
(Eleftheriadou  2019;  Eurocities  2019a,  2020;  European  Commission  2017a;  Mergel,  Edelmann,  and 
Haug 2019) or a human centric approach (iSCAPE 2018). Some authors also underline the importance 
of  participation  –  referring  to  “participatory  culture  and  deliberation”  (Eurocities  2019a;  Hveem, 
Manova, and Huhmo n.d.; iSCAPE 2018; Kung 2019; Pantiru 2019; Pye and Schaaf 2018; URBACT 2013) 
and “societal participation” (High-Level Expert Group on Business-to-Government Data Sharing 2020). 
In  the  EIF,  the  principle  User-centricity  is  recognised  and  referred  to  as  “the  importance  of 
systematically collecting, assessing and using feedback in the design of new public services and the 
improvement of existing services”.  

Secondly, the literature devotes particular attention to the need for relevant Skills and Capacity at the 
local level (Eurocities 2020; Kung 2019; URBACT 2013). Achieving interoperability in a Smart City (and 
Community) environment, requires that the local administration staff has the necessary background 
in  understanding  what  a  digitalisation  of  new  and  existing  public  services  entails,  and  how  this  is 
connected to interoperability. Therefore, it could be relevant to include a specific principle devoted to 
the  development  of  the  required  skills  and  capacity.  Highly  relevant  in  this  regard  is  the  work 
conducted  by  the  European  Commission  Interoperability  Unit  on  the  Interoperability  Academy 
(European Commission 2020b).  

A  final  category  that  receives  substantial  attention  in  the  literature  is  Data.  Highly  relevant  in  this 
regard are the key principles identified by High-Level Expert Group on Business-to-Government Data 
Sharing.  Although  not  specifically  focused  on  a  Smart  City  (and  Community)  environment,  the 
principles are relevant to present in this report. The High-Level Expert Group identified the following 
key principles (High-Level Expert Group on Business-to-Government Data Sharing 2020):  

•  Proportionality in the use of private-sector data 

•  Data-use limitation  

•  Risk mitigation and safeguards 

•  Compensation  

•  Non-discrimination 

•  Mitigate limitations of private-sector data 

•  Transparency and societal participation  

•  Accountability 

•  Fair and ethical data use  

Although not all the principles related to data sharing have the same level of relevancy for the EIF4SCC, 
they can serve as an input for the continuation of this study, and their relevance will be the subject of 
study in A03.02.  

46 

 
 
 
 
3.3.3.2.1.3. Connecting the principles to the Living-in.eu Principles 

As this EIF4SCC is strongly connected to the work of the Living-in.eu community, it is necessary to 
connect the suggested principles of this EIF4SCC to the Living-in.eu principles (Living-in.EU 2019).  

Those principles are the following:  

•  a citizen-centric approach: “Europe’s digital transformation process is to be developed with, 
and for, people. […] Citizens have a key role to play in developing and implementing smart city 
strategies and solutions. Connecting and engaging with people while enabling them to play a 
role  in  policy-making  and  creating  solutions  is  crucial  for  successful,  smart  cities  and 
communities.” (Living-in.EU 2019). 

• 

•  a city-led approach at EU level: “Strategic cooperation at EU level to scale up digital solutions 
should benefit from a city-led approach. As the level of government closest to the citizens, 
local  authorities  are  best  placed  to  understand  the  needs  of  the  local  communities  and  to 
coordinate  an  integrated  approach  that  connects  local,  regional,  national  and  European 
businesses.” (Living-in.EU 2019). 
the city as a citizen-driven and open innovation ecosystem: “Cities and communities are ideal 
real-life, large-scale testing grounds for digital solutions and can act as urban-living labs. Cities 
can lead stakeholder participation and ensure that the local community is actively involved in 
creating  solutions.  Open  innovation,  through  which  local  stakeholders  cooperate  and  take 
ownership of the agreed solutions, is vital for a successful digital transformation in the EU. 
Equally important is that cities and communities in the EU collaborate to make the most of 
economies of scale to foster investment in innovation.” (Living-in.EU 2019). 

• 

•  ethical and socially responsible access, use, sharing and management of data: “A vast quantity 
of digital data is produced every day. This data must be used responsibly and its quality, security 
and privacy ensured by design, to ensure public trust. Practices to be avoided include misuse of 
data — including unauthorised data sharing, reselling customer data, and biased algorithms that 
reinforce social inequalities. Digital data must be used in the public interest to improve decision 
making  and  public  services.  Local  governments  must  support  practices  and  initiatives  that 
ensure a better use and management of data, including the once-only and privacy-by-design 
principles, algorithm transparency and the use of unbiased algorithms to improve quality of life 
and digital rights in cities and communities.” (Living-in.EU 2019). 
technologies  as  key  enablers:  “Technologies  are  a  means  rather  than  an  end  in  the  digital 
transformation of our cities. The most advanced technologies with the simplest solutions is 
the ideal combination that will make our cities smart and sustainable.” (Living-in.EU 2019). 
interoperable  digital  platforms  based  on  open  standards  and  technical  specifications, 
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and shared data models: “Urban platforms are 
the  ‘operating  systems’  of  the  services  provided  by  smart  cities.  They  are  necessary  for 
handling  the  growing  range  of  stakeholders  and  data  across  various  sectors.  Interoperable 
urban platforms that promote open standards, APIs and shared data models are crucial for 
removing  barriers  such  as  vendor  lock-in  and  noninteroperable  proprietary  protocols. 
Interoperable urban platforms are essential for developing and putting in place innovative and 
cost-effective solutions across the EU, since they create open and interoperable ecosystems 
and can be extended to serve as spaces for creative experimentation.” (Living-in.EU 2019). 

• 

The first  Living-in.eu  principle, i.e. a citizen-centric  approach, is  connected  to the following above 
presented principles:  

•  6. User-centricity 
•  7. Inclusion and accessibility 
•  9. Multilingualism  

47 

 
 
Concerning user-centricity, it has to be underlined that the connection to the Living-in.eu principle on 
citizen-centric approach is even stronger if the revised version of the user-centricity principle (based 
on the literature review) is taken into account.  

A city-led approach at EU level, the second Living-in.eu principle, is connected to the following above 
presented principles 

•  1. Subsidiarity and proportionality  

The city as a citizen-driven and open innovation ecosystem, which is the third Living-in.eu principle, 
is connected to the following above presented principles 

•  2. Openness 
•  7. Inclusion and accessibility  

The  fourth  Living-in.eu  principle,  i.e.  ethical  and  socially  responsible  access,  use,  sharing  and 
management of data, is connected to the following above presented principles:  

•  2. Openness 
•  3. Transparency  
•  8. Security and privacy  
•  Data principle (identified via the literature review) 

Technologies  as  key  enablers,  the  fifth  Living-in.eu  principle,  is  connected  to  the  following  above 
presented principles:  

•  5. Technological neutrality and data portability 

This Living-in.eu principle underlines that the technology is “a means rather than an end in the digital 
transformation of our cities”. This requires interoperability, as the technology would otherwise be the 
objective rather than then the tool to new and/or improved services to citizens and users. So although 
there is only one principle related to Living-in.eu principle, it is a fundamental principle underpinning 
the work on the EIF4SCC.  

The  final  Living-in.eu  principle,  i.e.  interoperable  digital  platforms  based  on  open  standards  and 
technical  specifications,  Application  Programming  Interfaces  (APIs)  and  shared  data  models,  is 
connected to the following above presented principles:  

•  4.  Reusability  
•  5. Technological neutrality and data portability  

This cross-connection exercise demonstrates that most of the identified principles, both via the EIF 
and  the  literature  review,  could  be  related  to  the  Living-in.eu  principles.  Some  principles  could 
however not be connected. Those principles are the following:  

•  From the EIF:  

o  10. Administrative simplification  
o  11. Preservation of information  
o  12. Assessment of effectiveness and efficiency 

•  From the literature review:  

o  Skills and capacity principle  

The  results  of  this  study  will  have  to  be  studied  in  A03.02  Prepare  EIF  Draft.  This  activity  will  be 
executed via interviews, it will demonstrate which principles and layers need to underpin the EIF4SCC.  

48 

 
 
 
 
Co-creation Workshop Input on the interoperability principles of the framework: 

The city experts mentioned that interoperability requires principles and that they are also necessary 
at  all  levels,  including  the  policy  level.  Some  suggestions  were  made  about  the  collaboration  and 
collective approach between all the actors involved in the interoperability ecosystem that must include 
private and public entities. Overall, the principles of the Living-in.EU declaration did not lead to major 
discussion or controversy.  

3.3.3.2.2. Relevant identified Layers  

The  research  conducted  has  demonstrated  that  the  EIF  presented  interoperability  layers  that  are 
highly  relevant  for  the  EIF4SCC.  Those  four  layers  are  legal  interoperability,  organisational 
interoperability,  semantic  interoperability  and  technical  interoperability.  Based  on  the  insights 
provided  by  the  study  of  the  eHealth  European  Interoperability  Framework,  which  replaced  the 
organisational interoperability layer and the technical interoperability layer with respectively two new 
interoperability layers, it was decided to follow a similar approach.  

Similar to the eHealth European Interoperability Framework, the EIF4SCC is confronted with a high 
number  of  actors,  taking  different  roles  and  responsibilities.  However,  instead  of  replacing  the 
organisational interoperability layer and technical interoperability layer with new layers, sub-layers 
are created within those two main layers. Creating sub-layers allows to ensure alignment with the EIF. 
In this way the interoperability concept is, from a European Commission perspective, presented in a 
coherent  way  to  the  external  world  and  confusion  can  be  avoided  for  the  users.  Secondly,  this 
approach also ensures consistency with the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, which underlines 
that  the  European 
Interoperability  Framework  guarantees  “a  common  understanding  of 
interoperability throughout the European Union” (European Commission 2016a). Table 3.8 included 
hereunder, presents the different suggested layers of the EIF4SCC.  

The layer organisational interoperability has two sub-layers, i.e. policy and public service process. The 
layer  technical  interoperability  also  has  two  sub-layers,  i.e.  applications  and  IT  infrastructure.  The 
technical interoperability is supported by Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms (MIMs), which are “the 
smallest common denominator that is needed to guarantee interoperability between systems and data” 
(Valentino 2019). Currently, the following MIMs have been defined (Open & Agile Smart Cities 2019):  

•  OASC Context Information Management MIM 

•  OASC Data Models MIM 

•  OASC Ecosystem Transactions Management MIM 

Those MIMs will allow the creation of technical interoperability and are as such connected and usable 
in the two sub-layers of technical interoperability.  

Table 3.8 - Suggested Layers and Sub-Layers of the EIF4SCC 

Layer 1 

Layer 2 

Legal Interoperability  

Organisational Interoperability  

Sub-layer 2.1 

Policy 

Sub-layer 2.2 

Public service process  

Layer 3 

Layer 4 

Semantic Interoperability  

Technical Interoperability  

Sub-layer 4.1 

Applications 

Sub-layer 4.2 

IT Infrastructure  

49 

r
e
y
a

l

e
c
n
a
n
r
e
v
o
g
g
n
i
t
t
u
c
-
s
s
o
r
C

 
 
 
 
 
 
Finally, given the strong variation in the actors involved in Smart City (and Community) (see beginning 
of  Section  3.3.2.  Concept  of  a  EIF4SCC)  the  overarching  governance  required  for  the  coordination 
between the different involved actors is of high importance and is considered as a fundamental part 
of the EIF4SCC.  

Those layers will be further studied in A03.02, together with the above identified principles.  

Co-creation Workshop Input on the layers of the EIF4SCC: 

Besides building the EIF4SCC around the existing 2017 European Interoperability Framework layers, it 
was  suggested  by  one  of  the  city  experts  to  add  another  layer  to  the  Framework,  i.e.  the  service 
interoperability layer. This extra layer would ensure that services are operational between each other. 
The layers of the EIF4SCC have to be adjusted to the reality of smart cities and communities and need 
to have a more operational perspective, to allow a greater fit to the reality of the local administration 
management and operations. 

3.3.4. Discussion 

This section reflects on the feedback from the workshop and discusses how it could be incorporated into 
the EIF4SCC. The section focuses on the four main topics that were addressed during the co-creation 
workshop: the interoperability definition, the concept of the EIF4SCC, its principles and its layers. 

The participants expressed their concern about how technical the definition of interoperability might 
be.  The currently suggested definition of interoperability for the EIF4SCC includes a reference to “by 
means  of  the  exchange  of  data  between  their  ICT  systems”,  which  has  been  perceived  by  some 
participants of the co-creators’ group as too technical. It has to be underlined that this aspect of the 
definition is however in line with the currently applicable definition of interoperability as mentioned 
in the EIF. A possible approach to deal with this is to leave out this specific reference to ICT systems. 
However,  this  can  potentially  undermine  the  overall  consistency  of  how  the  EU  described 
interoperability. We believe we can explore this or other alternatives further by including this concern 
in the interviews that we have planned with experts. The other aspects referred to by the city experts 
are in line with the results of the literature review process.  

Regarding the EIF4SCC concept, the input from the city experts is highly relevant and complements 
the findings of the literature review. The literature review allowed describing what the EIF4SCC is, and 
the co-creation input further steers the direction that the framework can take. Especially relevant in 
this  regard  is  the  practical/case-oriented  approach,  as  well  as  the  inclusion  of  the  wide  variety  of 
different actors involved in a Smart City (and Community) context.  

In terms of the selected principles for the EIF4SCC, the results of the co-creation workshop are aligned 
with the results of the literature review process. It will be important to analyse further, in the next 
Tasks, how the principles identified through the literature reviewed can be connected with the Living-
in.eu principles or if new principles need to be added. One of such principles is Skills and Capacity.  

Finally, in relation to the interoperability layers for the EIF4SCC, it was possible to identify that the 
layered approach to interoperability is widely accepted in practice and in the academic literature. The 
interoperability frameworks developed at the EU level have followed the layered approach and this is 
also  in  line  with  the  input  of  the  city  experts.  Yet,  in  the  next  task,  it  will  be  important  to  further 
research to what extent the inclusion of an extra layer is relevant, and how this relates to the already 
known layers of the EIF and the other interoperability frameworks developed at EU level.  

50 

 
 
 
 
3.4. Conclusion  

As indicated in Section 1. Introduction, this report is a deliverable of ISA² Action 2016.33: European 
Interoperability  Framework  Implementation:  EIF  and  Smart  Cities,  towards  a  Smart  Cities  and 
Communities Interoperability Framework. The ISA² Action 2016.33 has three specific objectives:  

•  Develop an Interoperability Framework for local administrations and in particular smart and 

sustainable cities and communities as well as those aiming to become one. 

•  Establish  a  categorisation  of  usable 

identify  a  set  of 
recommendations for local administrations, and in particular smart and sustainable cities and 
communities as well as and those aiming to become one. 

Interoperability  actions  and 

• 

Increase the awareness of interoperability. 

This specific report aimed to contribute to those three overall objectives, by taking a closer look at the 
concept of the  EIF4SCC. In particular, this report had two objectives:  

•  Objective 1: Define the meaning of the EIF4SCCconcept.  

•  Objective 2: Understand the concepts of Smart Cities and Communities, and Interoperability.  

From  a  methodological  point  of  view  a  twofold  approach  was  followed,  whereby  first  a  literature 
review took place, and secondly a co-creation process, which was organised via a workshop with key 
stakeholders.  The  report  structure  has  been  aligned  with  the  objectives.  Section  3.3  Results  and 
Discussion  has  been  structured  along  the  three  concepts  defined  in  the  report  objectives,  i.e. 
Interoperability, Smart City and Community, and EIF4SCC. The literature review has focused on both 
academic and grey literature, which allowed to understand the concepts not only from an academic 
point of view, but also from a public administration point of view. The co-creation process allowed to 
gain insights from the key stakeholders and further refine the findings from the literature review.  

Related to the definition of a Smart City (and Community), also a classification, bringing together the 
recurrent variables of a Smart City (and Community), is developed as it ensures that the variety existing 
within the Smart Cities (and Communities) is covered by the EIF4SCC. The classification guarantees 
that the EIF4SCC covers the entire variation existing in Smart Cities (and Communities).  

From this report, a number of conclusions can be drawn. In line with the structure of Section 3. Results 
and Discussion, the main conclusions will be presented for each of the three studied concepts. Firstly, 
concerning the concept of interoperability, it can be concluded that in in the context of the EIF4SCC, 
interoperability can be defined as  

“the ability of organisations and individuals to interact towards mutually beneficial goals, 
involving the sharing of information and knowledge between these organisations and 
individuals, through the business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data 
between their ICT systems, including IoT.”. 

Secondly,  concerning  the  concept  of  a  Smart  City  and  Community,  it  can  be  concluded  that  in  the 
context of the EIF4SCC, it can be defined as  

“a place governed by local administrations where innovative services  are (co) developed and/or 
offered with stakeholders using digital and telecommunication technologies for the benefit of 
citizens and businesses.”. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
A classification of recurrent Smart City and Community variables was furthermore developed, 
whereby five different variables were identified. The five variables that structure the classification 
are the following:  

1.  Variable 1 – Service domain 

2.  Variable 2 – Type of offered service(s) 

3.  Variable 3 – Technologies  

4.  Variable 4 – Data accessibility 

5.  Variable 5 – Smart city and community actors 

The concept of a EIF4SCC can be defined as  

“an approach that aims to support local administrations in offering innovative services for the 
benefit of citizens and businesses in an interoperable way.” 

As this report is part of a wider Action, the conclusions of this report will be taken up in the following 
research steps. The results will in particular feed into the preparation of the EIF4SCC (Task 3, A03.01 
and A03.02) and the selection of relevant recommendations for the EIF4SCC (Task 4, A04.01). 

52 

 
 
 
 PROPOSAL FOR AN EIF4SCC 

This chapter includes the three stages of the EIF4SCC:  

•  Section 4.1 presents the draft EIF4SCC that was discussed during the 2nd workshop with the 

co-creators 

•  Section 4.2 presents the updated version of the EIF4SCC, including the main findings of the 

2nd workshop and the working session with the European Commission staff. This version was 
used for the stakeholder consultation. 

•  Section 4.3 presents the final version of the EIF4SCC, including the feedback and comments 

received during the stakeholder consultation. 

4.1. Draft EIF4SCC used for the 2nd Workshop  

4.1.1. Introduction  

Interoperability is key for cities and communities when addressing complex challenges such as climate 
change, pandemics or urban mobility using digital technology. Previous research has identified a wide 
array of challenges related to Smart Cities/Communities. Often those challenges are related to a lack 
of interoperability, such as a missing integration of services at local level or a lack of communication 
among different platforms and/or technologies. Acknowledging the relevance of interoperability for 
the wellbeing of the inhabitants in European cities and communities, the European Commission has, 
together  with  the  support  of  experts  on  Interoperability  and  Smart  City/Community,  led  the 
development of a European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities/Communities (EIF4SCC). The 
EIF4SCC  will  provide  European  Union  local  administration  leaders  with  guidelines  and  principles  to 
enable  interoperability  across  domains,  cities,  regions  and  borders,  leading  towards  an  improved 
service delivery for citizens and businesses. Indeed, the focus lies on EU local administration leaders 
as this EIF4SCC aims to provide those leaders with an overall view on what interoperability entails, and 
how  it  can  potentially  contribute  to  the  development  of  a  Smart(er)  City/Community.  Services  for 
citizens and business can thereby not only be offered in a single Smart City/Community, but also across 
cities, regions and – in the European context – also across borders. Therefore, the attention devoted 
to  interoperability,  should  also  take  those  aspects  into  consideration.  The  EIF4SCC  framework  has 
been developed by building on previous initiatives, and in particular the Living in EU principles, the 
2017  European  Interoperability  Framework  (EIF)  and  the  Minimal  Interoperability  Mechanisms 
(MIMs), and tailors them under the Interoperability and Smart City/Community context. 

The approach to develop the EIF4SCC started with the development of a definition of the two core 
concepts,  Interoperability  and  Smart  City/Community.  Both  concepts  have  received  substantial 
attention  in  the  academic  and  grey  literature.  The  combination  of  these  two  concepts  creates  the 
EIF4SCC definition/concept. A three-step approach has been followed to define both concepts. The 
first step was a literature review, the second step, a co-creation process and third step consisting of 
interviews  with  experts  on  Interoperability  and  Smart  Cities/Communities.  Those  three  steps  were 
chosen  as  their  combination  can  lead  to  a  widely  supported  EIF4SCC.  Once  the  concepts  of 
Interoperability and Smart City/Community were defined, the concept of the EIF4SCC was created. In 
general terms, the EIF4SCC framework includes three interconnected definitions, five principles, and 
a  single  model.  This  model  is  built-up  of  five  components,  one  cross-cutting  layer  and  the 
Interoperability Governance background. All these EIF4SCC elements will be explained in detail in the 
following sections. Figure 4.1 presents the EIF4SCC and its elements. 

53 

 
 
 
Figure 4.1 - EIF4SCC framework and its components 

4.1.2. Definitions of the EIF4SCC  

This section presents how the concepts of Interoperability, Smart City/Community and the EIF4SCC 
should be understood. A definition is provided for each concept. When referring to the EIF4SCC, these 
three definitions always need to be presented together, as they are connected with each other and 
reinforce each other. One cannot understand the EIF4SCC, when the concepts of Interoperability and 
Smart City/Community are not understood.  

Interoperability in the context of Smart City/Community is: 

“The ability of organisations and individuals to interact towards the delivery of services in cities 
and communities, through the exchange of data, information and knowledge, enabled by 
aligned processes and digital technologies”. 

Smart City/Community is: 

“A sustainable city/community aiming to the well-being of their inhabitants, businesses, visitors and 
city/community administrators by offering digitally -enabled services.”  

EIF4SCC is:  

“An approach to support the development of interoperable services in a city/community, aiming 
at sustainable development and the well-being of its inhabitants, business, visitors and 
city/community administrators” 

4.1.3. Tailored Principles for the EIF4SCC 

The principles of the EIF4SCC are the main building blocks defining the direction of the interoperability 
framework. The principles for the EIF4SCC are the result of tailoring the Living-in.eu principles (Living-
in.EU 2019) and the 2017 European Interoperability Framework (European Commission 2017) within 
the Interoperability and Smart City/Community context. The EIF4SCC principles were tailored via the 
workshop with city experts and the interview process with Interoperability and Smart City/Community 
experts. 

For the EIF4SCC the following principles to enable interoperability are proposed: 

54 

 
 
 
 
• A  human-driven  approach,  that  considers  as  an  aim  the  well-being  of  humans,  where
inclusivity, accessibility and multiculturalism/multilingualism play a key role. From the service
delivery perspective, this approach should also include administrative simplification for the
benefit of individuals and organisations.

•

•

identifying 

cities/communities.  Therefore, 

• A city needs-led approach at EU level, sharing interoperability experiences is a key strategy
to overcome interoperability challenges and to inspire individuals or organisations within and
commonalities  across  different
across 
city/community contexts can help provide efficient and tailored support.
The city as a participatory-driven and open innovation ecosystem has to promote an open
and  collaborative  approach  that  takes  into  consideration  the  opinion  of  the  different
individuals  and  organisations,  and  thereby  build  on  participatory  approaches,  such  as  co-
creation and co-production.
Ethical and socially responsible access, use, sharing and management of data, that takes into
account  transparency,  security  and  privacy.  The  protection  of  the  individuals’  privacy,  the
preservation of their information and its security must be guaranteed as well as the right of
the individual to be forgotten. For data interoperability, MIMs can serve as an example.
Technologies as key enablers, not as the objective. Technology should only be considered as
an enabler when appropriate. Technological neutrality and data portability should be taken
into account when developing services. The development of interoperable digital platforms
should  consider  open  standards  and  tailored  technical  specifications.  This  will  require  an
appropriate assessment of their effectiveness and efficiency. Hence, the use of technologies
must consider the development of skills and capacities of the service providers and the users

•

4.1.4. Tailored Layers and Components for the EIF4SCC 

The  previous  desk  research,  the  workshop  with  city  experts  and  the  interview  process  with 
Interoperability and Smart City/Community experts demonstrated that the EIF interoperability layers 
are  highly  relevant  for  the  EIF4SCC.  However,  a  tailored  approach  to  the  EIF4SCC  framework  was 
considered necessary. Hence, the interoperability layers (legal, organisational, semantic and technical) 
of the 2017 European Interoperability Framework have been tailored for the EIF4SCC. Among the most 
important  changes is the  shift of the four aforementioned layers to components of a collaborative 
model. According to the interviewed experts it is important to have an approach that provides a less 
hierarchical  and  a  more  collaborative  focus  than  the  2017  European  Interoperability  Framework 
approach,  which  includes  layers.  Figure  4.2  –  The  elements  of  the  EIF4SCC  interoperability  model 
presents the components of the EIF4SCC interoperability model.  

55 

Figure 4.2 – The elements of the EIF4SCC interoperability model 

As can be seen in Figure 4.2, the EIF4SCC interoperability model is built on five components, one 
cross-cutting layer and an Interoperability Governance background. The following interoperability 
components can be identified:  

1)  Cultural interoperability,  
2)  Legal interoperability,  
3)  Organisational interoperability,  
4)  Semantic interoperability and  
5)  Technical interoperability.  

The cross-cutting layer refers to Integrated Service Governance. These six components occur within 
the Interoperability Governance background.  

This EIF4SCC interoperability model retains similar characteristics as the 2017 European 
Interoperability Framework. This can be considered as a strength, as it ensures a common European 
approach towards interoperability (European Commission 2017). Additionally to the revised layered 
design, the main changes in the EIF4SCC tailored version are reflected in the addition of the Cultural 
Interoperability component and the modification of Integrated Public Service Governance, which is 
now labelled Integrated Service Governance. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Background: 

• 

Interoperability governance is the key to a holistic approach on interoperability, “[referring] 
to  decisions  on  interoperability  frameworks,  institutional  arrangements,  organisational 
structures, roles and responsibilities, policies, agreements and other aspects of ensuring and 
monitoring interoperability at national and EU levels” (European Commission 2017a, p. 22).  

Cross-cutting layer: 

• 

Integrated service governance. The 2017 EIF refers to the public nature of services and states 
that “European public service provision often requires different public administrations to work 
together  to  meet  end-users’  needs  and  provide  public  services  in  an  integrated  way” 
(European Commission 2017). By excluding the concept public, included in the 2017 EIF, the 
cross-cutting layer becomes broader and acknowledges the role of non-public administration 
actors in the service provision in the Smart Cities/Communities. As a substantial amount of 
data  and  information  is  out  of  the  hands  of  public  administrations,  the  Integrated  service 
governance from a Smart City/Community perspective needs to take a broader view and then 
only focus on the public administration itself. Hence, Integrated service governance refers to 
the  governance  context  and  has  to  cover  all  components:  cultural,  legal,  organisational, 
semantic  and  technical  interoperability.  Ensuring  interoperability  when  agreeing  on  the 
cultural  context,  preparing  legal  instruments,  organising  collaboration  processes,  data  and 
information exchange, services and components that support Smart City/Community services 
is a continuous task, as interoperability is regularly disrupted by changes to the environment 
(European  Commission  2017).  Integrated  service  governance  will  result  in  an  integrated 
service pathway and shared workflows (eHealth Network 2015).  

Components: 

•  Cultural interoperability refers to the approach taken by individuals and organisations to align 
their  societal  cultural  differences  and,  if  applicable,  organisational  cultural  differences. 
Interoperability can be challenged by cultural differences, as individuals and organisations can 
respond differently to the same interoperability challenge. These cultural differences can, for 
example, be reflected in political challenges and leadership styles. Different actors within a 
Smart  City/Community  can  have  varying  views  on  how  leadership,  within  a  context  of 
interoperability,  is  exercised.  This  requires  a  debate  among  the  involved  actors  on  how  to 
exercise leadership in their interoperability context.  
Legal interoperability is about ensuring that individuals and organisations, be it public and 
non-public  organisations,  operating  under  different  legal  and  regulatory  frameworks, 
procurements,  policies  and  strategies  are  able  to  work  together.  This  might  require  that 
regulations  and  legislation  do  not  block  the  establishment  of  services  within  a  Smart 
City/Community and between different Smart Cities/Communities. There is a need for clear 
agreements  about  how  to  deal  with  differences  in  regulations  and  legislation  across  Smart 
Cities/Communities, including the option of putting in place new regulations and legislation 
(partially based on European Commission, 2017a, p. 27). 

• 

•  Organisational interoperability refers to the way in which organisations align their business 
processes,  responsibilities  and  expectations 
to  achieve  goals  commonly  agreed. 
Organisational interoperability means documenting, integrating or aligning business processes 
and relevant information exchanged. “Organisational interoperability also aims to meet the 
requirements  of  the  user  community  by  making  services  available,  easily  identifiable, 
accessible  and  user-focused”  (partially  based  on  European  Commission,  2017a,  p.  28). 
Furthermore, an active involvement of the user community can be considered to be part of 
the organisational interoperability component. 

57 

 
 
•  Semantic interoperability ensures that the precise format and meaning of exchanged data 
and information is preserved and understood throughout exchanges between individuals and 
organisations  (partially  based  on  European  Commission  2017a).  “Semantic  interoperability 
covers both semantic and syntactic aspects: The semantic aspect refers to the meaning of data 
elements  and  the  relationship  between  them.  It  includes  developing  vocabularies  and 
schemata to describe data exchanges and ensures that data elements are understood in the 
same way by all communicating parties. The syntactic aspect refers to describing the exact 
format  of  the  information  to  be  exchanged  in  terms  of  grammar  and  format”  (European 
Commission 2017). 

•  Technical interoperability refers to the inclusion of interface specifications, interconnection 
integration  services,  data  presentation  and  exchange,  and  secure 
services,  data 
communication protocols (partially based on European Commission 2017a). From a technical 
interoperability  point  of  view,  the  Minimal  Interoperability  Mechanisms  (MIMs)  –  i.e. 
“universal tools for achieving interoperability of data, systems, and services between cities 
and suppliers around the world” – are of high importance, and can guide those working on 
interoperability (Open & Agile Smart Cities 2019).  

4.2. Draft EIF4SCC used for the Public Consultation 

4.2.1. Overview 

Cities and communities are confronted with complex challenges, such as climate change, housing 
quality, pandemics, energy efficiency and urban mobility. More and more cities and communities are 
making use of the possibilities offered by digital solutions and technological advancements to tackle 
those growing challenges. Cities and communities are therefore transforming themselves into Smart 
Cities and Communities.  

Interoperability is crucial to overcome the above-mentioned challenges in cities and communities. 
Lack of interoperability leads to fragmented service delivery at local level as well as lack of 
communication among different platforms, technologies and stakeholders, results in suboptimal 
services to the public. 

Acknowledging the importance of interoperability for the well-being of the inhabitants, 
businesses, visitors and city/community administrators in the European Union, Deloitte and KU 
Leuven University have developed a proposal for the European Interoperability Framework for 
Smart Cities/Communities (EIF4SCC), appointed by the European Commission. 

The aim of the EIF4SCC is to provide European Union local administration leaders with definitions, 
principles, recommendations, including practical use cases, and a common model that enables 
service delivery to the public across domains, cities, regions and borders. 

Framework approach 

This framework has been developed by building on and finding complementarities with previous and 
ongoing initiatives, the Living-in.EU movement, the 2017 European Interoperability Framework (EIF), 
the Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms (MIMs) and the outcomes of EU funded initiatives 
(Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Digital Building Blocks, Smart Cities Marketplace, Intelligent Cities 
Challenge, etc.) and EU funded projects (Synchronicity, Triangulum, etc.).  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 – EIF4SCC alignment with other EU initiatives & projects 

The study framework followed the steps below: 

1) First step – Definitions of two core concepts: Interoperability and Smart City/Community,

based on an extensive academic and grey literature. The combination of these two concepts
creates the EIF4SCC definition/concept;

2) Second step – Discussion of the definitions through a co-creation process with cities, regions

and Members States representatives (first workshop);

3) Third step - Interviews with experts on Interoperability and Smart Cities/Communities, to

get their feedback on the concepts, definitions, principles and layers;

4) Fourth step – Co-creation process to discuss the EIF4SCC principles, layers and the

conceptual model and to set-up recommendations and use cases (second workshop);

5) Fifth step – Internal working sessions with EC staff to set up the draft proposal for EIF4SCC;

The outcome of these interactions steered the development of this draft proposal for EIF4SCC. 

6) The current step represents this stakeholder consultation process, in which your views and

contributions will be considered in the final proposal for the EIF4SCC.

4.2.2. Introduction 

This chapter develops all parts of EIF4SCC. 

59 

4.2.3. Definitions of the EIF4SCC concepts 

This section presents how the concepts of Interoperability, Smart Cities and Communities (SCC) and 
the EIF4SCC should be understood. A definition is provided for each concept. When referring to the 
EIF4SCC, these three definitions always need to be presented together, as they relate to and reinforce 
each other. One cannot understand the EIF4SCC, when the concepts of Interoperability and SCC are 
not understood.  

Interoperability in the context of a SCC, and as such in and between the different domains of a SCC, is: 

“The ability of organisations and individuals to interact towards the delivery of services in cities and 
communities, through the exchange of data, information and knowledge, enabled by aligned processes 
and digital technologies.” 

Smart City/Community10 is: 

“A sustainable city/community aiming at the well-being of their inhabitants, 
businesses, visitors and city/community administrators by offering digitally 
-enabled services.”  

EIF4SCC is:  

“An approach to support the development of interoperable services in a city/community, aiming 
at sustainable development and the well-being of its inhabitants, business, visitors and 
city/community administrators.” 

4.2.4. Tailored Principles for the EIF4SCC 

Besides those three definitions, the EIF4SCC is also underpinned by five principles that steer the 
direction of the interoperability framework. Those five principles are presented in the next section 
and are the fundamental behavioural aspects defining the direction of the interoperability in Smart 
Cities and Communities. They are the result of tailoring the Living-in.eu principles  and the 2017 
European Interoperability Framework to the context of Interoperability and SCC. 

For the EIF4SCC the following principles to enable interoperability are proposed: 

•  A human-centric approach, whereby the well-being of humans, inclusivity, accessibility and 
multiculturalism/multilingualism play a key role. From the service delivery perspective, this 
approach should also include administrative simplification for the benefit of individuals and 
organisations.  Therefore,  this  embraces  the  once  only  principle,  aiming  to  reuse  data  and 
documents that people have already provided, in a transparent and secure way. 

10 This framework refers consequently to Cities and Communities, as the document targets local administration 
leaders from EU capital cities up to the local villages and urban areas around the EU.  Cities and communities 
mean  geographically  defined  communities  of  people,  having  legal  status,  legal  representative  and  self-
governance, legally recognised by its Member State. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Recommendation #1 

Ensure that inhabitants and visitors play an active role by connecting, engaging and enabling 
them in the policy-making and testing solutions for smart cities and communities. 

Use case 

Nantes, France 

The city of Nantes, winner of the European Capital of Innovation Award 2019, has been 
actively providing its inhabitants with the tools to be more involved in decision-making. 
Nantes believes in the intelligence and strength of collective action, and their objective is 
to improve public policies and urban processes through citizen-driven innovation. Nantes’ 
participative culture seeks to create a tailored and innovative city built by and for its 
inhabitants and citizens, considering their needs, uses and solutions. 

One initiative in this field is the involvement of citizens in major urban renewal projects – 
the “Ile de Nantes” and “Loire au Coeur” – where 25 citizens, randomly selected, formed an 
independent panel connected to the tender process. The teams responding to the tender 
were able to develop solutions that included the citizens’ sensitive, pragmatic and non-
expert viewpoints, supplying officials with additional reasoned and unbiased perspectives. 

Recommendation #2 

As far as possible under the legislation in force, ask cities/communities service users once-
only and relevant-only information. 

Recommendation #3 

Ensure that accessibility for inhabitants and visitors (including people with disabilities, the 
elderly and other disadvantaged groups) are taken into consideration during the 
procurement, design, development, implementation and monitoring phase of services, by 
respecting e-accessibility specifications at regional, national, European or international level. 

Use case 

Warsaw, Poland: 

Warsaw was the winner of the 2020 Access City Award, an EU initiative that recognises 
cities that became more accessible for their citizens. By involving people with disabilities 
in its endeavour to make the city more accessible, Warsaw was able to make a substantial 
improvement to the city's ease of access in a short space of time. 

To be equal for all its citizens and inhabitants, the City of Warsaw has improved its 
website and has made it accessibility-friendly, with more than 300 employees trained on 
web accessibility. The city also has an ongoing application, geared at making the city more 
accessible with investments continuing to improve their digital communication in the 
future – supporting those with learning difficulties and hearing impairments. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  A city needs-led approach at EU level, sharing experiences relating to interoperability is a key 
strategy to overcome interoperability challenges and to inspire individuals or organisations 
within and across cities/communities. Therefore, identifying commonalities across different 
city/community contexts can help provide efficient and tailored support.  

Recommendation #4 

Join existing forums, networks and working groups, at local, regional, national and 
European level11 to boost cooperation, collaboration, join forces, discuss and share 
experiences and best practices. 

Use case 

Across cities, Living-in.EU movement  

Several public administration at local, regional, national or European level are members of 
the Living-in.EU movement - a collaborative platform for cities and communities to 
accelerate their digital transformation the 'European way' (citizen-centric approach, 
ethically and socially responsible data usage, co-creation with and engagement of citizens, 
open and interoperable standards). 

The aim of Living-in.EU is to work in a collaborative way among its members to scale up 
the use of data technology to tackle a range of interconnected challenges, including urban 
mobility, energy efficiency, and digital public services, while ensuring environmental 
sustainability in line with the European Green Deal. Cities/communities, regions and 
Member States leaders are invited to join the community by signing the ‘Join, Boost, 
Sustain’ declaration, which non-governmental organisations, businesses and non-EU cities 
can also subscribe to as supporters. 

Iconic Projects: The Living-in.EU movement is working on a number of ‘iconic projects’, 
areas of focus for collaboration and knowledge-sharing by Declaration signatories. Some 
examples: Urban Data Platforms, Urban Digital Twins, Citizen Card and Digital 
Neighbourhood Instrument. 

Le Havre, France   

Le Havre is part of the Intelligent Cities Challenge (ICC), a European Commission initiative 
that supports 136 cities in using cutting-edge technologies to lead the intelligent, green 
and socially responsible recovery. Le Havre’s main ICC goal was to develop a roadmap for 
the digital transformation of the city, based on the needs and demands of its citizens. It 
aims to raise awareness of the city’s inhabitants on how advanced technology can be used 
to improve their daily lives. For Le Havre, the ICC is a forum and facilitator to rally the 
city’s digital local ecosystem around a common cause. 

Le Havre wishes to develop a community of champions of digital transformation and to 
shape a strong vision for the future in the next 10-15 years. The city expects the ICC to be 
a catalyst of this process, bringing unique skills and expertise while fostering the city’s 

11  Examples  of  existing  forums,  networks  and  working  groups  include:  Living-in.EU,  Intelligent  Cities  Challenge, 
Open and Agile Smart Cities, EUROCITIES, The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), Smart Cities Marketplace, 
European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN), Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
connections across Europe. Ultimately, the city hopes that the ICC will be an inspiration to 
bring digital solutions closer to the people. 

•  The city as a participatory-driven and open innovation ecosystem should promote an open 
and  collaborative  approach  that  takes  into  consideration  the  opinion  of  individuals  and 
organisations,  and  thereby  builds  on  participatory  approaches,  such  as  co-creation  and  co-
production.  

Recommendation #5 

Ensure collaboration and communication between inhabitants, business, visitors and 
city/community administrators, in your city/community, so that different needs (e.g. 
assisted living, social care, health, education, culture and environment), challenges and 
requirements are addressed in a collaborative way by involving stakeholders with all the 
necessary competencies and/or skills in the co-creation and co-production  of services. 

Use case 

Porto, Portugal: 

Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Porto (SCMP), created over 500 years ago, is a charity and 
social assistance institution. The SCMP supports the most vulnerable, being one of the 
main players in the region in the areas of Health, Social Services, Education, Culture and 
Environment and is continually looking for new answers to the problems that society is 
facing.  

The organisation, in collaboration with business companies, is developing innovative, 
efficient and tailor-made solutions that meet the needs of the elderly. These needs are 
identified based on the experience of SCMP with the elderly people. 

For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the institution launched the “Remote 
Visiting” initiative that allows the elderly to communicate with their family/ friends, 
returning this way to the routine of visits, which is essential for the well-being of old 
people. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendation #6 

Foster an open innovation ecosystem (local living labs) to ensure that the local community 
is actively involved in creating new and scaling up solutions. 

Use case 

Graz, Austria 

The city of Graz has a long-term “Smart City Strategy” that includes mobility measures 
prioritising public transport, e-mobility investments and city logistics. 

To ‘smartly’ redesign an important square in the centre of Graz – Griesplatz which is an 
important traffic hub in area that has various purposes: private vehicle mobility, public 
transportation, pedestrian and cyclist zones, local goods supply, housing and many 
services and institutions of all sorts – the city conducted a living lab experiment that 
engages local stakeholders. 

This experiment consists of five phases: 1) identification of most important stakeholders; 
2) collection of inputs from the stakeholders; 3) organisation of a design competition; 4) 
Incorporation of the results of the competition on the final architectural (re)design of 
Griesplatz and; 5) evaluation of the impact of the living lab. 

The living Lab experiment expects to increase the chances for a successful smart 
renovation of the square, reduce the risk of a socio-technical ‘misfit’ (i.e.: technical 
solutions that do not fit the demand and concerns of stakeholders), as well as the risk of 
not including some social groups (especially non-smart groups, by approaching them ‘on 
street’ and inviting them in the participative activities), while at the same time increasing 
the legitimacy of the final design. 

•  Ethical  and  socially  responsible  access,  use,  sharing  and  management  of  data  and 
technology,  that  considers  transparency,  security  and  privacy.  The  protection  of  the 
individuals’ privacy, the preservation of their information and its security must be guaranteed 
as well as the right of the individual to be forgotten. 

Recommendation #7 

Make sources of information available to inhabitants, business, visitors and 
city/community administrators ensuring security and privacy in accordance with the 
relevant legislation and contribute to the EU smart cities data space. 

Recommendation #8 

Ensure that digital rights are respected during the design, development, implementation 
and monitoring phase of the digital services (including GDPR issues). 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use case 

Bordeaux, France: 

The city of Bordeaux signed the Declaration of Cities Coalition for Digital Rights aiming to 
protect and uphold human rights on the internet at the local and global level, showing its 
willingness to take greater part in digital policy.  

 With the signature of this declaration, Bordeaux aims to implement several actions, such 
as: i) Pursuing a public data policy involving citizens and the business ecosystem; ii) 
Ensuring transparency in the use of collected data; iii) Including  support and information 
provision for citizens with the launch of each new digital service. 

Recommendation #9 

Ensure transparency on data sharing collaborations between and within government, 
citizens and businesses. 

Use case 

Across cities, Nordic Smart Governance (NSG) 

The NSG aims to simplify the life of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in the 
Nordic region. For that it is adapting its use of business data and making this available for 
public and private stakeholders in real-time. 

This aims to increase innovation and growth in the region and the boost SMEs productivity 
by reducing their administrative burden. 

This collaboration uses real-time access to business transactions from businesses’ 
enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, establishing machine-readable interfaces to 
real-time data from businesses’ supporting systems and assessing how data can be 
gathered from the source. 

The programme will create value for businesses, public authorities and society by sharing 
data across the region in an automatic, intelligent and secure manner. 

•  Technologies as key enablers, not as the objective. Technology should only be considered as 
an enabler when appropriate. Technological neutrality and data portability should be taken 
into account when developing services. The development of interoperable digital platforms 
should consider using open standards and open technical specifications. This will require an 
appropriate assessment of their effectiveness and efficiency. Hence, the use of technologies 
must consider the development of digital skills and capacities of the service providers and the 
users.  
Open standards and open technical specifications avoid vendor or technology lock in and 
enable interoperability while fostering the smart city ecosystem and the related digital 
solutions market. The level of openness of a specification/standard is decisive for the reuse 
of software components implementing that specification. This also applies when such 
components are used to introduce new services. If the openness principle applies in full: 

o  all  stakeholders  have  the  opportunity  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  the 

specification and a public review is part of the decision-making process; 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
o the specification is available for everyone to study;
o intellectual property rights to the specification are licensed on FRAND (fair, reasonable
and  non-discriminatory)  terms,  in  a  way  that  allows  implementation  in  both
proprietary and open source software, and preferably on a royalty-free basis.

Recommendation #10 

Use open standards and open technical specifications when developing local data 
platform and services, include multiple access and assistance channels to ensure that 
users can choose the option that best addresses their needs and/or preferences. 

Use case 

Cascais, Portugal: 

 As part of the municipality’s policy of engaging its citizens, inhabitants and tourists, the 
Municipality of Cascais has been developing several projects with the objective of 
promoting participatory citizenship. One example is Fix Cascais App. The app, which is free 
to use, allows citizens, residents or tourists, to report road, pavement and wall (graffiti) 
damage, broken water fountains in public parks, illegal dumping, missing street signs and 
overgrown weeds. Incidents are reported in 4 simple steps: user identification; 
categorisation by choosing from a list of options or the user can add a new category; 
identification of the location manually, or through the “near me” function that allows the 
app to mark the location where the user is; and image sharing. 

The report is automatically forwarded to the respective area of the City Council via an 
integration of the app with the document management systems of the municipality. The 
report, always ensuring the users’ data privacy, are available for consultation at a later stage, 
which allows the user to check if the report being submitted has been resolved or not. 

Besides the app, the incidents can be reported through email, contact centre, or written 
procedure. 

Recommendation #11 

Implement seamless solutions at the service of inhabitants, businesses, visitors and 
city/community administrators, leveraging advanced technologies (such as IoT, 
blockchain, AI, etc.). 

Recommendation #12 

Set-up an interoperable local data platform that integrates and reuses data of cities and 
communities by local stakeholders, and promotes open standards and open technical 
specifications, APIs and data models to provide a holistic view of the information. This 
aims to support policy makers in decision-making process and to foster innovation and 
citizen engagement. 

66 

Use case 

Amsterdam, Netherlands: 

The Amsterdam Data Exchange (AMdEX) is an innovation fieldlab in which several 
stakeholders collaborate to develop and test trusted, fair and scalable solutions to support 
the need of datamarkets in which its users can decide with whom to interact and under 
which conditions. 

AMdEX aims to provide broad access to data from/for researchers, companies and private 
individuals. Inspired by the Open Science Cloud of the European Commission, the project 
is intended to connect with similar projects across Europe. 

In the AMdEX fieldlab the following use cases will be tested: 

Aircraft maintenance data market
Smart mobility data market

•
•
• Materials data market
•
Research data market

4.2.5. Tailored Layers and Components for the EIF4SCC 

The desk research, workshops with city experts and interviews with Interoperability and Smart 
City/Community experts demonstrated that the EIF interoperability layers are highly relevant for the 
EIF4SCC. However, a tailored approach to the EIF4SCC framework was considered necessary given 
that the EIF4SCC is focused on interoperability at the local level and has a wider thematic scope than 
the 2017 European Interoperability Framework. Among the most important changes is the shift of 
the layers to components of a collaborative model. According to the experts interviewed, it is 
important to have an approach that is less hierarchical and more collaborative than the 2017 EIF, 
which includes layers. Figure 4 presents the elements of the EIF4SCC interoperability model. It is 
built on five components, one cross-cutting layer, all built on the foundation of Interoperability 
Governance. The following interoperability components have been identified:  

6) Cultural interoperability,
7) Legal interoperability,
8) Organisational interoperability,
9) Semantic interoperability and
10) Technical interoperability.

The cross-cutting layer refers to Integrated Service Governance. These five components and cross-
cutting layer occur against the background of the Interoperability Governance.  

67 

Figure 4 – The elements of the EIF4SCC interoperability model 

This EIF4SCC interoperability model retains some characteristics of the 2017 European 
Interoperability Framework. This ensures a common European approach to interoperability. In 
addition to the revised layered design, the main changes in the EIF4SCC are the addition of Cultural 
Interoperability and the modification of Integrated Public Service Governance, which is re-labelled as 
Integrated Service Governance. 

Background: 

•

Interoperability  governance  is  key  to  a  holistic  approach  to  interoperability,  referring  to
decisions  on 
institutional  arrangements,  organisational
structures, roles and responsibilities, policies, agreements and other aspects of ensuring and
monitoring interoperability at local, national and EU levels.

interoperability 

frameworks, 

Recommendation #13 

Define a holistic governance of interoperability services across domains and stakeholders at 
the local level, complying with national and European interoperability requirements to ensure 
interoperability across cities/communities, regions and borders. 

Use case 

Denmark 

The Danish National eHealth Authority published several national reference architectures 
describing how interoperability can be achieved between eHealth systems in Denmark by 
recommending a range of architectural frameworks, standards, and profiles. 

The scope of this reference architecture document is the sharing of patient related 
documents and images across administrative domains/sectors and IT systems. 

These architectural frameworks used the content and recommendation present on EIRA - 
European Interoperability Reference Architecture - an architecture content metamodel 
defining the most salient architectural building blocks (ABBs) needed to build 

68 

interoperable e-Government systems. It provides a common terminology that can be used 
by people working for public administrations in various architecture and system 
development tasks. 

Cross-cutting layer: 

•

Integrated service governance. The 2017 EIF refers to the public nature of services and states
that European public service provision often requires different public administrations to work
together  to  meet  end-users’  needs  and  provide  public  services  in  an  integrated  way.  By
excluding  the  concept  public,  included  in  the  2017  EIF,  the  cross-cutting  layer  becomes
broader and acknowledges the role of non-public administration actors in the service provision 
in the SCCs. As a substantial amount of data and information in a SCC context is out of the
hands of public administrations, the Integrated service governance has to take a broader view
and  not  only  focus  on  the  public  administration  itself.  Therefore,  Integrated  service
governance refers to the governance context and encompasses all components: cultural, legal,
organisational,  semantic  and  technical  interoperability.  Ensuring  interoperability  when
agreeing the cultural context, preparing legal instruments, organising collaboration processes,
data  and  information  exchange,  services  and  components  that  support  SCC  services  is  a
continuous  task,  as  interoperability  is  regularly  disrupted  by  changes  to  the  environment.
Integrated  service  governance  will  result  in  an  integrated  service  pathway  and  shared
workflows.

Recommendation #14 

Reuse and share solutions and services by cooperating with different stakeholders in the 
design, development, implementation and monitoring phase at the local, regional, 
national and European level. 

Use case 

Helsinki, Turku and Tampere, Finland 

The cities of Helsinki, Turku and Tampere are working together to implement the 6Aika: 
Carbon Neutral Tourism project. This project aims to implement a new operating model 
using data and digital tools to promote carbon neutrality and improved energy efficiency 
within the tourism industry in cooperation with the cities of Helsinki, Turku and Tampere 
and various tourism operators. 

The project will define applicable indicators and develop and correlate relevant data 
sources such as air traffic data, road traffic data, hotel booking nights and business data. 
These data will be combined into a shared database and will be transformed into usable 
and readily available information supported by smart solutions to reduce emissions 
generated by the tourism industry. 

As an example, the data could be used to determine the right amount of hotel 
investments, select sustainable destination markets, guide tourist flows sustainably and 
efficiently, discover hidden seasons, and balance year-round tourism. Businesses could 
also make concrete changes to their services, at the local level. 

By consolidating all the data in one place and leveraging Artificial Intelligence or machine 
learning, the entire industry could make more sustainable choices based on accurate 

69 

information. Energy efficiency can also be improved by providing businesses with specific 
evidence-based development targets to reduce consumption. 

The smart solutions, together with the industry tourism operators and public 
stakeholders, will build digital tools required and develop a CO2-TIS (Carbon Neutral 
Tourism Intelligence System) operating model, that will be piloted in cities. 

Recommendation #15 

Establish an integrated governance structure with involved stakeholders to ensure 
interoperability in the delivery of the integrated services, in coordination with the holistic 
interoperability governance guidance. 

Recommendation #16 

Establish and publish API design guidelines to facilitate the automation of data sharing and 
data access for cities and communities to enable the development of (new) services and 
solutions. 

Use case 

Region of Lombardy, Italy: 

The Region of Lombardy has been publishing open data and open geoservices for more 
than 10 years. One of its strategic goals is to use an API-driven approach to open the 
overall Regional Information System and spread “public value” to inhabitants, businesses, 
visitors and city/ community administrators, and encourage public-private partnerships to 
share APIs and co-design and implement new digital public services. 

The Region of Lombardy and ARIA s.p.a, the regional in-house organisation responsible for 
digital innovation and public procurement, are collaborating with the European 
Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) in a pilot project to validate the JRC API 
framework proposal “Government API Best Practices and Guidelines: Proposals for an 
Evidence-Based, EU-wide API framework” and has been using the “Government API 
Framework Maturity Instruments” proposed by the JRC to assess their API Programme 
and gain a better understanding of where and what they need to improve. 

Recommendation #17 

Support and/or promote best practices among local administrations, at an early stage of 
any (new) service design, development and implementation phase. 

Use case 

Hungary 

Based on the experiences of previous low-impact local government digitalisation projects, 
isolated back-office solutions and a lack of interoperability at local public administrative 
level, the Hungarian Government has decided that local government IT developments 

70 

must be continued in a more centralised way. To promote unified technical quality 
standards and ensuring optimal use of investment and operational resources, a 
centralised application service providing (ASP) model has been chosen to promote local 
government digitalisation in Hungary. The application service provider (ASP) model is 
largely used worldwide in many business sectors and public administrations as a cost-
effective solution and allows the software to be accessed remotely via a simple web 
browser. 

Components: 

•

Cultural interoperability refers to the approach taken by individuals and organisations to align
their  social  and  cultural  differences  and,  if  applicable,  organisational  cultural  differences.
Interoperability can be impacted by cultural differences, as individuals and organisations can
respond differently to the same interoperability challenge. These cultural differences can, for
example, be reflected in political challenges and leadership styles. Different actors within a
SCC can have varying views on how leadership, in the context of interoperability, is exercised.
This requires a debate among the actors involved about how to exercise leadership in their
interoperability context.

Recommendation #18 

Ensure that diverse stakeholders (inhabitants, businesses, visitors and cities/ communities 
administrators) are involved in a multidisciplinary process of definition and/or design of 
interoperable services so that societal cultural (economic, ethnic, religious beliefs, gender, 
language) differences are accounted for. 

Use case 

Leuven, Belgium: 

The Leuven 2030 roadmap was developed in a co-creation and co-design process between 
research institutes, companies, local government and citizens. People from different 
nationalities, religions, political views, gender and socio-economic background were 
included when defining all these actions to achieve carbon neutrality in the city of Leuven. 

The Leuven 2030 represents all actors in the society. The close cooperation between 
knowledge institutions, companies, local government, and citizens is known as the 
quadruple helix, a unique model. As a result of the success and effectiveness of this 
concept, Leuven was awarded the Green Leaf Award 2018 and the European Capital of 
Innovation Award 2020. 

Recommendation #19 

Monitor software codes and ensure transparency of AI algorithms, to avoid biases 
(economic, ethnic, religious beliefs, gender, etc.) that can discriminate against individuals 
or groups. 

71 

Use case 

Helsinki, Finland: 

The city of Helsinki uses the AI Register as a foundation to tackle the problem of harmful 
effects of algorithms, incomplete datasets and biased developers and as a window into 
the artificial intelligence systems to make fairer decisions with a positive impact on its 
stakeholders. 

Through the AI register, inhabitants, business, visitors and city/community administrators 
can access a quick overview of the city's artificial intelligence systems and examine the 
information in greater depth based on their own interests.  

The city uses AI as part of their city services and these include: housing and environment, 
social services and health care, and culture and leisure. 

• 

Legal interoperability is about ensuring that individuals and organisations, be it public and 
non-public  organisations,  operating  under  different  legal  and  regulatory  frameworks, 
procurements, policies and strategies can work together. Policies, regulations and legislation 
should enable the establishment of services within a SCC and between different SCCs, and not 
block it. There is a need for clear agreements about how to deal with differences in policies, 
regulations and legislation across SCCs, including the option of putting in place new policies, 
regulations  and  legislation.  The  sharing  of  data  is  for  example  strongly  influenced  by  legal 
interoperability, as this requires the development and use of data licences.   

Recommendation #20 

Place a solid and trusted legal framework to enable and facilitate data sharing across 
stakeholders and across domains at local, regional, national and European level. 

Use case 

Netherlands: 

The Privacy by Design Foundation creates and maintains free and open-source software in 
which the privacy of the user is paramount. The most important application of the 
foundation is the identity platform IRMA, an acronym of I Reveal my Attributes.  

IRMA is a unique privacy-friendly identity platform for both authentication and signing, 
empowering the citizens to disclose some of their attributes online (“over 18”) while at 
the same time hides other (like their name, or phone number), and being able to 
authenticate themselves to, for example, login on a website, protecting this way their 
privacy. 

Recommendation #21 

Communicate clearly the right to access and reuse of open data. The legal permission for 
facilitating access and reuse, such as Creative Commons Licenses, should be standardised 
as much as possible. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use case 

Lisbon, Portugal:  

“Lisboa Aberta” is a free data sharing portal produced by the Lisbon City Council and the 
partner entities of the Lisboa Aberta program, with the aim of enhancing citizen 
participation, encouraging the reuse and sharing of data, stimulating entrepreneurship 
and innovation. The catalogue allows the user to navigate through data from: public 
administration and justice, environment, culture, sports, economy and innovation, 
education, urban management, amongst others. 

The use of the data is free of charge and the rights related to users' accessibility are 
licensed under the Creative Commons CC Zero Attribution 1.0 license. 

•  Organisational interoperability refers to the way in which organisations align their business 
processes,  responsibilities  and  expectations 
to  achieve  commonly  agreed  goals. 
Organisational interoperability means documenting, integrating or aligning business processes 
and  relevant  exchanged  information.  Organisational  interoperability  also  aims  to  meet  the 
requirements of users by making services available, easily identifiable, accessible and user-
focused.  Furthermore,  active  involvement  of  the  user  community  can  be  part  of  the 
organisational interoperability component. 

Recommendation #22 

Put in place an organisational structure to establish clear roles and responsibilities of 
business processes to deliver local services. 

Use case 

Berlin, Germany:  

In 2016 the city of Berlin issued its Berlin law on e-government (E-Government Gesetz 
Berlin) that was a real game changer for digital services in the city. Before 2016 city IT 
services were developed mostly independently by over 100 different entities on municipal 
and central level. This led to several hundred different solutions of very different levels of 
maturity and with no safeguards for interoperability.  

With the 2016- law, Berlin introduced a central IT governance led by a Minister of State 
with clear tasks and mandates. The new central entity provides a central ICT architecture 
with cross-cutting building blocks that have to be (re)used for all ICT solutions in the cities. 
The solutions for the different portfolios (social, environment etc.) are to be developed by 
the different ministries respecting the common architectural model. Organisational 
interoperability got a real boost as the law foresees that before providing a digital solution 
the service has to prove that the underlying business processes were optimised. A 
cooperation mechanism on business process management between implementing 
municipality and central city ensures that the same concepts are reused in the description 
of business processes. First use cases show that this also has a positive impact on the 
drafting of new digital-ready policies. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Semantic interoperability ensures that the precise format and meaning of exchanged data 
and information is preserved and understood throughout exchanges between individuals and 
organisations.  Semantic  interoperability  covers  both  semantic  and  syntactic  aspects:  The 
semantic aspect refers to the meaning of data elements and the relationship between them. 
It  includes  data  models,  controlled  vocabularies  and  common  code  lists  to  describe  data 
exchanges  and  ensures  that  data  elements  are  understood  in  the  same  way  by  all 
communicating  parties.  The  syntactic  aspect  refers  to  describing  the  exact  format  of  the 
information to be exchanged in terms of grammar and format. 

Recommendation #23 

Ensure a common understanding of data and information (format, meaning of data, 
relationship between parties), across stakeholders and across domains at local, regional, 
national and European level. 

, meaning of 

Use case 

Flanders region, Belgium:  

Flanders is running a project that ensures an automated update of data in databases – 
Local Decisions as Linked Open Data LBLOD. 

The project launched in 2015 aims to publish local decisions as Linked Open Data so that 
this information can be exchanged automatically between local and higher authorities, 
making it easier to re-use information reducing the administrative burden, simplifying 
decision-making processes, transparency and providing better and more efficient services 
to its inhabitants, business, visitors and city/community administrators. 

As the data is published online, this project ensures that data from local decisions can also 
be re-used by non-state actors, creating an open government that is transparent and open 
to the outside world. 

•  Technical interoperability refers to the inclusion of interface specifications, interconnection 
services,  data 
integration  services,  data  presentation  and  exchange,  and  secure 
communication protocols. Furthermore, when applying standards they should be available in 
an  open  format.  Open  technical  specifications  should  be  tailored  to  the  specific  context  in 
which  they  will  be  used.  From  a  technical  interoperability  point  of  view,  the  Minimal 
Interoperability Mechanisms (MIMs) and the CEF Building Blocks, based on commonly agreed 
open standards and open technical specifications, ensure achieving interoperability of data, 
systems,  and  services  between  cities  and  suppliers  around  the  world,  and  can  guide  those 
working on interoperability in a smart city/community ecosystem.  

Recommendation #24 

Create more horizontal services towards local data platforms, to overcome silos within 
different domains, by encouraging collaboration and engagement among inhabitants, 
business, visitors and city/community administrators. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use case 

Copenhagen, Denmark: 

Copenhagen’s City Data Exchange (CDE) aims to break down application silos by 
integrating and sharing city data through a collaborative effort involving 50 companies. 
The economies of scale resulting from this strategy lower the costs of data management 
for all participants.   

The city decided to invest in the creation of a marketplace for the exchange of public, and 
private sector data. The initial investment was meant as a seed towards a self-sustained 
marketplace. This was an innovative approach to test the readiness of the market to 
deliver new data-sharing solutions. 

Recommendation #25 

Develop and provide services that ensure inhabitants, businesses and visitors are able to 
identify and authenticate using eID schemes. 

Use case 

Netherlands  

The eIDAS 2018 Municipalities Project is one of the early implementations of the mutual 
recognition principle of European eIDs to access public services introduced by the eIDAS 
regulation.  

It enables citizens of EU Member States and EEA countries to electronically prove their 
identity with their nationally issued eID when seeking access to around 300 services in 81 
municipalities across the Netherlands.  

This project not only allows an easier access of the end-user to public services but it also 
significantly reduces the administrative burden - there is no need to maintain multiple 
databases and spend resources on collating and cross verifying information across borders 
and jurisdictions. 

The solution is currently available for Austrian, German and Belgian eID holders, and 
should progressively be extended to other countries connecting to the eIDAS network. 

Recommendation #26 

Use the Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms (MIMs) and the CEF Building Blocks,  based 
on commonly agreed open standards and open technical specifications for achieving 
interoperability of data, systems, and services, to support cities/ communities and 
suppliers during the design, development and implementation phase of new services or 
reengineer existing ones (to avoid “reinventing the wheel”). 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use case 

Japan 

The Japanese government has launched the “Super City Initiative” to deliver the benefits 
of digital transformation to their inhabitants, business, visitors and city/community 
administrators. 

The aim of this initiative is to launch Japanese cities into a new age of urban planning and 
to offer better and more efficient services. The Super City initiative pays particular 
attention to and considers European benchmarks like the General Data Protection 
Regulation, the once only principle and the minimal interoperability mechanisms (MIMs) 
as these are needed to achieve digital transformation of their cities. 

Recommendation #27 

Use and raise awareness of the benefits of applying open standards and technical 
specifications amongst smart cities/communities service providers, during the design, 
development and implementation phase. 

Use case 

Lisbon, Portugal: 

During the public procurement process, to set up the Intelligent Platform of Lisbon, the 
use of a set of standards to be followed based on Fiware, an open source middleware 
platform, was mandatory.  

The Intelligent Platform of Lisbon is a technological solution that provides capacity for 
monitoring, analysis and management of the entire local ecosystem, based on the use of 
open technologies. 

Recommendation #28 

Ensure a local level playing field for open source software and demonstrate active and fair 
consideration to increase the quality and interoperability solution and become more cost-
efficient. 

Use case 

Barcelona, Spain: 

The city has a set of Ethical Digital Standards: A Policy Toolkit, which is an open source 
Policy Toolkit for cities to develop digital policies that put citizens at the centre and drive 
governments to become more open, transparent, and collaborative. 

The Barcelona City Council Open Digitisation Plan defines a process of profound, 
progressive change in the way the city will develop and offer its services to its citizens. It 
aims for radical improvement in digital public services, based on their Ethical Digital 
Standards, including in particular the use of free software, open standards, data 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
sovereignty, developing digital services in an agile manner, and ensuring privacy, ethics 
and security by design. 

Recommendation #29 

Develop apps/ digital services ensuring that these are open by default (even if not using 
open standards and open technical specifications, the apps/ digital services should allow 
integration with others through APIs, to boost the digital transformation at local level). 

Use case 

Espoo, Finland: 

The city of Espoo offers the REST, an open interface on the espoo.fi website in which users 
can search for news, events, projects, electronic services, announcements and basic 
content documents. The interface covers all three language versions of the espoo.fi 
website (Finnish, Swedish, and English). The search can be limited by content type. 

Finland: 

Finland developed API development guidelines to support the Finnish public sector. It is 
adapted and expanded from Whitehouse API guidelines. The content of these guidelines is 
technical and directed at developers. The guide provides basic instructions on how to 
build a service focusing on best practices of API design. 

4.2.6. Tailored Conceptual Model for the EIF4SCC 

The  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  conceptual  model  aims  to  support  the  understanding  of  local 
administration leaders for the planning, development, operation and maintenance of integrated SCC 
services.  The  conceptual  model  is  developed  from  a  generalised  smart  city/community  ecosystem 
perspective. Hence, it serves as a generalised model and might need to be adapted according to the 
specific  context  of  local  administrations.  The  conceptual  model  is  in  line  with  the  2017  European 
Interoperability Framework and proposes the idea of “interoperability by design”, meaning that the 
integrated smart city/community services should be designed in accordance with the proposed model 
and with interoperability and reusability requirements in mind.  

The conceptual model for the Integrated Smart City/Community Services, is presented in Figure 5. 

77 

Figure 5 – Conceptual model for Integrated Smart City/Community Services 

The model includes six essential elements and its related interactions. The elements are 1) Service 
Users,  2)  Integrated  Smart  City/Community  Services,  3)  Service  Providers,  4)  Data  Sources  & 
Services, 5) Technology and 6) Security & Privacy. These six elements are explained below. 

1.  Service  Users,  such  as  inhabitants, 
visitors,  businesses  and  city/community 
administrators  make  use  of  the  services 
offered  by  the  Service  Providers.  Service 
Users can take an active role by providing 
their input through co-creation and coproduction processes in the Integrated Smart City/Community Services. 
Service Users can also provide their input via technology, which might lead to improved services offered to 
them. This dynamic implies a continuous exchange of data, guarantying security and privacy. 

2.  Integrated  Smart  City/Community  Services  are  those 
services  offered  to  the  Service  Users  by  the  Service 
Providers. Those Integrated Smart City/Community Services 
can  –  but  not  necessarily  –  be  offered  in  a  collaboration 
between  the  public  and  non-public  sector.  Services  can  range  from  the  development  of  services  that  are 
cloud-based and provide a user-friendly interface for Service Users to those such as the development of a 
Local Digital Twin. A Digital Twin is a digital copy of the city/community that allows to test policy decisions in 
a digital environment. Those services can make use of building blocks that are available for reuse. Examples 
of such building blocks are the ISA² solutions and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Building Blocks, which 
offer  basic  capabilities  and  can  be  used  in  any  European  project  to  facilitate  the  delivery  of  digital  public 
services across borders. Some ISA² and CEF Building Blocks examples are the EUSurvey, the Core Vocabularies, 
the eSignature or eInvoicing.  

78 

 
 
 
 
3.  Service  providers,  such  as  the 
local  public 
administration,  businesses  and  societal  actors  can 
provide a great variety of services to Service Users. 
Those  services  can  go  from  the  registration  of  the 

birth of a child, to the delivery of meals at your doorstep or the management 
of the streetlights during the night. The interaction between Service Providers 
and  Service  Users 
in  the  SCC  can  occur  within  a  Common  Smart 
City/Community Council. The aim of the Council is to facilitate the delivery of 
services in the SCC.  

The  Council  provides  an  interaction  stage  for  Service  Providers  and  Service  Users.  This  Council  can  take  a 
leading  role  in  identifying  service  needs,  in  planning  how  to  handle  service  needs,  in  executing  the  plans 
regarding services and in evaluating the achievement of the objectives.  

Figure 6 – Common Smart City/Community Council 

Considering that the Common Smart City/Community Council is an interaction ground in the relation between 
the  Service  Users  and  Service  Providers,  it  is  important  to  reflect  on  the  organisation  of  the  Council.  The 
different  actors  of  a  SCC  should  decide  on  how  they  want  to  organise  the  Council  so  that  it  can  function 
according to their needs and context. This interaction can lead to co-creation and coproduction processes. 
Figure 4 offers a detailed view of the Common Smart City/Community Council. The Council can be developed 
taking into account different possible service domains as well as the interactions between those domains – 
think of Smart Economy (e.g. entrepreneurship, economic grown and value creation), Smart Governance (e.g. 
public  participation,  public-private  partnerships,  transparent  governance),  Smart  Environment  (e.g.  waste 
management,  sustainable  energy  use,  water  resilience),  Smart  Living  (e.g.  housing  quality,  urban  safety, 
educational quality, cultural facilities), Smart People (e.g. skills & talented human capital, a caring community) 
and Smart Mobility (e.g. public transport systems, efficient road accessibility).  

4. Data Sources & Services consists of two 
aspects.  The  first  aspect  is  focused  on  the 
data  sources  available  in  a  SCC.  The  data 
can  be  collected  via  both  the  Service 
Providers and Service Users, through Smart 

Sensors, Internet of Things, Software Applications, etc.  

The data can be classified as open, shared and closed, depending on privacy and/or security reasons.  

•  Open data is available for reuse by third parties with a minimum set of restrictions. In the EU, this 
concept of open data is used to denote the specific relationship of public administrations opening 
their  data  with  a  minimum  set  of  restrictions  towards  third  parties  (whereby  limited  financial 
compensations can still apply).  

79 

 
 
 
• 

• 

Shared data is an intermediate category. This is data that is not shared as open data, but it is available 
for third parties while respecting certain conditions. Those conditions are more restrictive than those 
governing open data.  

Finally, closed data has a restricted use and cannot be shared with third parties.  

Sharing and opening data can go in different directions. The public administration actors can share data with 
non-public administration actors and vice versa. The data is structured in data catalogues that will support 
the service providers to find reusable data sources. Data from public administration can be recognised in the 
format of a base registry. A base registry is a trusted and authoritative source of information which can and 
should be digitally reused by others, where one actor is responsible and accountable for the collection, use, 
updating and preservation of information. From a non-public administration actors’ perspective, it could also 
be  relevant  to  reflect  on  the  possibilities  offered  by  the development of  base  registries.  This  requires  the 
necessary legal framework and agreements with the public administration actors. Those base registries can 
stimulate the once only principle, aiming to a reuse of data and documents that service users have already 
supplied, in a transparent and secure way. 

In line with data, services can be classified as open, shared or closed.   

•  When services are available in an open format, they can be reused by third parties with a minimal 

set of restrictions.  

• 

Shared services are also reusable, but the reuse will be restricted to certain conditions – e.g. time 
limitations, allowed number of users, restrictions on which type of actors can reuse it.  

•  Closed services are not available for reuse by third parties. 

The European Commission, as well as national and regional public administrations, have developed building 
blocks.  These  are  services  that  are  available  to  both  public  administration  and  non-public  administration 
actors for reuse. Building blocks can be available in an open or in a shared format. These building blocks allow 
the Service Providers to offer Integrated Smart City/Community Services to the Service Users in a standardised 
way.  The  reusable  building  blocks  lead  to  a  higher  efficiency  for  the  Service  Providers,  and  to  a  possible 
increase in the user-friendliness for the Service Users.  

The  data  and  services  can  be  shared  among  the  different  SCC  actors  in  the 
Common  Smart  City/Community  Data  Platform,  also  known  as  a  Local  Data 
Platform.  This  Platform,  which  can  be  set-up  by  Service  Providers,  facilitates 
management and sharing of city/community data and services. This can be done 
in line with the governance approaches of the Common Smart City/Community 
Council. The difference between the Common Smart City/Community Council and this Data Platform lies in 
the fact that the Common Smart City/Community Council is focused on the overall organisation of the SCC 
and the services offered in it. In contrast, the Data Platform focuses on the exchange of data and services. 
Both are as such complementary to each other.  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7 – Common Smart City/Community Platform 

Figure  7  provides  a  detailed  view  of  this  Common  Smart  City/Community  Data  Platform.  The 
main  beneficiaries  of  this  Data  Platform  are  the  Service  Providers,  who  feed  and  take  out  data  from 
the  Data  Platform  to  develop  and  offer  services.  The  dotted  line  in  Figure  5  indicates  that  the  data  and 
services reused from  the  Data  Platform  can  be  offered  under  specific  reusability  conditions.    Together 
with  the  Service  Providers,  the  Service  Users  play  a  key  role  in  the  Data  Platform.  Via  their  overall 
behaviour  within  the  SCC  and  the  use  of  services  offered  to  them  by  the  Service  Providers,  the  Service 
Users  provide  data  to  the  Data  Platform. Of crucial importance hereby is the privacy and security of data. 
Since the Service Providers tend to provide more data to the Data Platform when compared to the data they 
use,  the  yellow  arrow  is  wider  than  the  blue  arrow.  Different  types  of  data  can  be  available  in  the  Data 
Platform  – think  of  administrative  data,  scientific  data,  crowd-sourced  and  statistical  data,  data  collected 
via Internet of Things or data collected via environmental and urban sensors. A use case applied by various 
cities and communities in the European Union is  Fix  My  Street.  The  service  provides  local  administration 
with  direct  input  from  inhabitants,  visitors  and  others  on  incidents  within  local  administrations’  public 
space.  The  users  of  Fix  My  Street  are  as  such  co-creating  the  improvement  of  the  public  space.  Some 
local  administrations  have  decided  to  publish  the  collected data as open data so that third parties can 
develop their services based on such data.  

5. Technology has, together with Security & Privacy, a fundamental role in the
set-up  of  the  Integrated  Smart  City/Community  Services.  Both  aspects  have  a
relevant  impact  on  the  process  of  creating  Integrated  Smart  City/Community
Services offered by the Service Providers to the Service Users. The Technology
allows for the collection, storing, sharing, updating and preservation of data, and
creates the possibility to build reusable services. It allows the Service Providers to 
create Integrated Smart City/Community Services for the Service Users and gives

the  possibility  to  the  Service  Users  to  take  an  active  role  in  the  creation  of  those  services.  Examples 
of  technology  that  is  relevant  in  a  SCC  context  are  Artificial  Intelligence,  Big  Data,  Blockchain,  Cloud 
computing,  High  performance  computing,  Digital  Twins,  Data 
Internet  of 
Things,  Mobile  applications, etc.  

Integration  platforms, 

6. Security & Privacy are primary concerns in the provision of services, and both 
the public administration and non-public administration actors need to ensure
that  a  privacy-by-design  and  security-by-design  approach  is  followed.  Also,  it
should  be  ensured  that  services  are  not  vulnerable  to  attacks  and  that  the
services are compliant with [contractual and] legal requirements and obligations
regarding  data  protection  and  privacy.  Like  Technology,  Security  &  Privacy
impacts  not  only  the  City/Community  Data  Sources  &  Services,  but  also  the
relation between the Service Providers and the offering of Integrated Smart City/Community Services to the 
Service Users.  

81 

Recommendation #30 

Use the conceptual model for European Smart City and Community Services to support 
the design of new services or update existing ones and reuse, if possible, existing data, 
service components and digital solutions such as CEF Building Blocks, ISA2 solutions. 

Use case 

Vienna, Austria: 

Vienna manages one of the biggest challenges for smart cities, big data, through the 
VeroCity Platform. 

Its data aggregation and analysis capabilities are based on the CEF Context Broker Building 
Block of the European Commission, which can sort through all kinds of data from different 
sources from all over the city. The Context Broker enables the platform to provide visual 
dashboards that cater to the needs of all stakeholders, from inhabitants to city officials 
and software developers, with real time information. 

The platform can ease day-to-day activities, such as urban mobility, environmental 
monitoring, urban infrastructure, energy efficiency etc. The city’s open data and open 
interfaces, in addition to the web services offered, have contributed to unprecedented 
innovation as +200 new applications have been developed by third-party software 
engineers. 

4.2.7. Conclusion 

All parts of EIF4SCC has been used for the stakeholder consultation.

82 

4.3. Final Proposal for the EIF4SCC 

4.3.1. Overview 

Cities and communities are confronted with complex challenges, such as climate change, housing 
quality, health and social issues, energy efficiency and urban mobility. More and more cities and 
communities are making use of the possibilities offered by digital solutions and technological 
advancements to tackle those growing challenges. Cities and communities are therefore 
transforming themselves into Smart Cities and Communities (SCC) taking full benefit of digital 
technologies and becoming more green, resilient and sustainable for the well-being of people.  

Interoperability is crucial to overcome the above-mentioned challenges in cities and communities. 
Lack of interoperability leads to fragmented service delivery at local level as well as a lack of 
communication among different platforms, technologies and stakeholders, resulting in suboptimal 
services to the public. 

Acknowledging the importance of interoperability for the well-being of inhabitants, businesses, 
visitors and city/community administrators in the European Union, Deloitte and KU Leuven were 
appointed by the European Commission to develop a proposal for a European Interoperability 
Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC). 

The aim of the EIF4SCC is to provide European Union local administration leaders with definitions, 
principles, recommendations, practical use cases, and a common model to facilitate service 
delivery to the public across domains, cities, regions and borders. 

This framework has been developed by building on and finding complementarities with previous and 
ongoing initiatives, such as, for instance the Living-in.EU movement, the 2017 European 
Interoperability Framework (EIF), the Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms (MIMs Plus) and the 
outcomes of EU funded initiatives (e.g.Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Digital Building Blocks, Smart 
Cities Marketplace, Intelligent Cities Challenge, Digital Transition Partnership under the Urban 
Agenda) and EU funded projects (Synchronicity, Triangulum, etc.) as illustrated in Figure 8.  

Figure 8 – EIF4SCC alignment with other EU initiatives & projects 

83 

The study framework followed the steps below: 

Figure 9 - EIF4SCC development steps 

Figure 10 - EIF4SCC in a nutshell 

4.3.2. Introduction 

Cities and communities have a fundamental role in the European Union. They are the place where 
most European citizens live and work12. Cities and communities include inhabitants, visitors, 
administrators, businesses and organisations. Furthermore, they are places where digital solutions 
and technology can support the creation of value that unlocks social, economic and environmental 
benefits for their citizens and business. Cities and communities are confronted with complex 
challenges, and therefore are using digital solutions and technological advancements to tackle these 
growing and often interlinked challenges. Co-creation with citizens is also key to turning European 
cities and communities into smart, resilient, sustainable and inclusive places where people enjoy 
living, working and visiting.   

Current complex challenges and their solutions raise the need for improved interoperability. Lack of 
interoperability leads to a missing integration of services provided at local level and beyond or a lack 
of communication among different (data) platforms and/or technologies. The lack of interoperability 
is also a major obstacle to foster the progress of innovation in cities and communities. It can delay 
the contribution to meet the targets stated under the Europe’s digital future and the EU Green Deal. 
Progressing interoperability will help to fully address the challenges faced by cities and communities 
via digital solutions and technological advancements, the different actors need a common 
understanding of their way of working, their activities and services. This includes reflecting on the 
applicable legal frameworks but also on the standards that are applied in the technical development 
of services, just to mention an example. In addition, interoperability avoids vendor or technology 
lock in and helps create an open and fair market where SMEs can develop. Cities and Communities 

12 Eurostat, 2016, Urban Europe Statistics on cities, towns and suburbs. 

84 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
benefit from a variety of standard-based solutions that are interoperable and more affordable, 
reducing time to implement and to deliver services to the public. 

Acknowledging the relevance and benefits of interoperability for the wellbeing of the inhabitants in 
cities and communities in the European Union, the European Commission aims to develop an 
European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC).  

The purpose of the EIF4SCC is to: 

•

•

•

inspire cities and communities across the EU in their efforts to transition to SCC, in particular
in the delivery of digital services within their local context, together with the other Smart City
and Community actors;
provide guidance to EU local administration leaders with principles, recommendations and a
common model that enables interoperability across domains, cities, regions and borders, to
improve service delivery for citizens and businesses;
contribute  to  shaping  Europe’s  digital  future  by  fostering  cross-border  and  cross-sectoral
interoperability, supporting as such Europe’s digital transformation in the local context.

The EIF4SCC deliberately focuses on EU local administration leaders as it aims to provide a generic 
framework of what interoperability entails, and how it can contribute to the development of a 
Smart(er) City/Community. This will pave the way for services for citizens and business to be offered 
not only in a single SCC, but also across cities, regions and across borders.  

The EIF4SCC includes three interconnected definitions, five principles, and seven elements, 
composed by five components, one cross-cutting layer which occur against the foundational layer of 
the Interoperability Governance. To ensure that EU local administration leaders can easily apply the 
EIF4SCC to their city or community, a conceptual model for integrated service governance was 
developed. This conceptual model presents the governance support required for the coordination of 
activities. All these EIF4SCC components are explained in detail in the following sections.  

Figure 11 presents the EIF4SCC and its elements. The EIF4SCC is punctuated with recommendations 
and use cases that can inspire EU local administration leaders in their work on interoperability.  

The content and structure of the EIF4SCC is presented below: 

•
•

•

•

•

•

Chapter 4.3.3 presents the definitions of the concepts set out in the EIF4SCC;
Chapter 4.3.4 presents a set of principles (five) intended to establish a general approach when
developing SCC services based on interoperability;
Chapter  4.3.5  presents  the  elements  (seven)  of  the  EIF4SCC,  and  in  particular  the  five
components,  one  cross-cutting 
layer  which  occur  against  the  background  of  the
Interoperability Governance;
Chapter 4.3.6 outlines a conceptual model for Integrated SCC Services. The conceptual model
is  in  line  with  the  interoperability  principles and  proposes the  idea  of “interoperability  by
design”;
Chapter 4.3.7 concludes the document by providing an overview and tying together the major
elements of the EIF4SCC;
A set of 30 recommendations and 35 use cases, as actionable items to be implemented in SCC,
are discussed across the different chapters.

85 

Figure 11 - EIF4SCC Framework for SCC 

4.3.3. Definitions of the EIF4SCC concepts 

This  section  presents  how  the  concepts  of  Interoperability,  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  and  the 
EIF4SCC  should  be  understood.  A  definition  is  provided  for  each  concept.  When  referring  to  the 
EIF4SCC, these three definitions always need to be presented together, as they relate to and reinforce 
each other. One cannot understand the EIF4SCC, when the concepts of Interoperability and SCC are 
not understood.  

Figure 12 - EIF4SCC Concepts 

Interoperability in the context of a SCC, and as such in and between the different domains of a SCC, 
is: 

The ability of organisations and individuals to interact towards the delivery of services in cities 
and communities, through the exchange of data, information and knowledge, enabled by 
aligned processes and digital technologies, taking into account security and privacy issues. 

86 

Smart City/Community13 is: 

A sustainable and inclusive city/community aiming at the well-being of their 
inhabitants, businesses, visitors, organisations and city/community 
administrators by offering digitally-enabled services. 

EIF4SCC is: 

An approach to support the development of interoperable services in a smart city/community 
across domains and across cities and borders. It defines basic interoperability guidelines in the 
form of common principles, elements, models and recommendations with use cases. 

4.3.4. Tailored Principles for the EIF4SCC 

Besides the three definitions set out above, the EIF4SCC is also underpinned by five principles. They 
are as such the main building blocks defining the direction of the interoperability framework. 

These five principles are presented in the next section and are the fundamental behavioural aspects 
defining the direction of the interoperability in SCC. They are the result of tailoring the Living-in.eu 
and the 2017 European Interoperability Framework principles to the context of SCC. 

Figure 13 - EIF4SCC Principles 

13 This framework refers consequently to Cities and Communities, as the document targets local administration 
leaders from EU capital cities up to the local villages and urban areas around the EU.  Cities and communities 
mean  geographically  defined  communities  of  people,  having  legal  status,  legal  representative  and  self-
governance, legally recognised by its Member State. 

87 

•  A  human-centric  approach,  whereby  well-being, 

and 
multiculturalism/multilingualism play a key role. From the service delivery perspective, this 
approach should also include administrative simplification for the benefit of individuals and 
organisations. Therefore, this embraces the once only principle14, aiming to reuse data and 
documents that people have already provided, in a transparent and secure way. 

accessibility 

inclusivity, 

Recommendation #1 

Ensure that inhabitants and visitors play an active role by connecting, engaging and 
enabling them in policy-making, co-creation and testing of solutions for SCC. 

Use case 

Nantes, France 

The city of Nantes, winner of the European Capital of Innovation Award 2019, has been 
actively providing its inhabitants with the tools to be more involved in decision-making. 
Nantes believes in the intelligence and strength of collective action, and their objective is 
to improve public policies and urban processes through citizen-driven innovation. Nantes’ 
participative culture seeks to create a tailored and innovative city built by and for its 
inhabitants and citizens, considering their needs, uses and solutions. 

One initiative in this field is the involvement of citizens in major urban renewal projects – 
the “Ile de Nantes” and “Loire au Coeur” – where 25 citizens, randomly selected, formed 
an independent panel connected to the tender process. The teams responding to the 
tender were able to develop solutions that included the citizens’ sensitive, pragmatic and 
non-expert viewpoints, supplying officials with additional reasoned and unbiased 
perspectives. 

More information: European Commission Website 

14  The once only principle means that individual users/businesses should not be required to supply the same 

information more than once. For instance, if information has already been submitted to one public 
administration, individual users/businesses should not be required to submit that information again to 
another public administration.  

   EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, COM(2016) 179  

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/egovernment-action-
plan#:~:text=The%20eGovernment%20Action%20Plan%20enables,to%20operate%20efficiently%20across%20borders 

   Berlin Declaration on Digital Society and Value-Based Digital Government, 2020 

https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/sites/default/files/cdr_20201207_eu2020_berlin_declaration_on_digital_society_and_v
alue-based_digital_government_.pdf  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Recommendation #2 

As far as possible under the legislation in force, ask cities/communities service users once-only 
and relevant-only information, ensuring a fully transparent process on how data is used. 

Use case 

Madrid, Spain 

Spain is a highly decentralised country, so there are multiple interoperability mechanisms 
between administrations. All public administrations in Spain are connected to a central 
data exchange node (PID - Platform for data intermediation), which, inter alia, reduces the 
administrative burden of data-sharing. 

Madrid is an active contributor to this platform. Moreover, with the user’s permission, every 
time that they access a municipal procedure, their information is accessed through the city’s 
registry avoiding the need for the user to authenticate themselves every single time. 

In addition, the City Council makes available information related to Madrid’s own records 
to other organisations that want to consult it. 

Madrid is the leader in the number of types of data that can be consulted and offered to 
the rest of the administrations on this platform, with more than 300.000 consultations 
and more than 40 different types of sources consulted from other administrations. 

Moreover, this platform has been awarded a UN prize and a special mention by the ISA2 
programme. 

More information: PID - Platform for data intermediation 

Recommendation #3 

Ensure that accessibility (including for people with disabilities, the elderly and other 
disadvantaged groups) is taken into consideration during the procurement, design, 
development, implementation and monitoring phase of service provision, including by 
following e-accessibility specifications at regional, national, European or international 
level. 

Use case 

Warsaw, Poland 

Warsaw was the winner of the 2020 Access City Award, an EU initiative that recognises 
efforts cities are making to become more accessible. By involving people with disabilities 
in its endeavour to make the city more accessible, Warsaw was able to make a substantial 
improvement to the city's ease of access in a short space of time. 

To be equal for all its citizens and inhabitants, the City of Warsaw has improved its 
website and has made it accessibility-friendly, with more than 300 employees trained on 
web accessibility. The city also has an ongoing application, geared at making the city more 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
accessible with investments continuing to improve their digital communication in the 
future – supporting those with learning difficulties and hearing impairments. 

More information: European Commission Website 

•  A city needs-led approach at EU level, sharing experiences relating to interoperability is a key 
strategy to overcome interoperability challenges and to inspire individuals or organisations 
within and across cities/communities. Therefore, identifying commonalities across different 
city/community contexts can help provide efficient and tailored support.  

Recommendation #4 

Endorse and join existing forums, networks and working groups, at local, regional, national 
and European level15 to boost cooperation, collaboration, join forces, discuss and share 
experiences and best practices and build upon the knowledge and experience already 
available. 

Use case 

Living-in.EU 

Across cities and communities, Living-in.EU movement  

Several public administrations at local, regional, national or European level are members 
of the Living-in. EU movement - a collaborative platform for cities and communities to 
accelerate their digital transformation the 'European way' (citizen-centric approach, 
ethically and socially responsible data usage, co-creation with and engagement of citizens, 
open and interoperable standards). 

The aim of Living-in.EU is to work in a collaborative way among its members to scale up 
the use of data technology to tackle a range of interconnected challenges, including urban 
mobility, energy efficiency, and digital public services, while ensuring environmental 
sustainability in line with the European Green Deal. Cities/communities, regions and 
Member States leaders are invited to join the community by signing the ‘Join, Boost, 
Sustain’ declaration, which non-governmental organisations, businesses and non-EU cities 
can also subscribe to as supporters. 

Iconic Projects: The Living-in.EU movement is working on a number of ‘iconic projects’, 
areas of focus for collaboration and knowledge-sharing by Declaration signatories, for 
example Local Data Platforms, Local Digital Twins, Citizen Card and Digital Neighbourhood 
Instrument. 

More information: Living-in.EU website 

15 Examples of existing forums, networks and working groups include: Living-in.EU, Intelligent Cities Challenge, 
Open  and  Agile  Smart  Cities,  EUROCITIES,  The  European  Network  of  Living  Labs  (ENoLL),  Smart  Cities 
Marketplace, European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN), Local Governments for Sustainability 
(ICLEI), etc. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
_______________________________________________________________________ 

Le Havre, France   

Le Havre is part of the Intelligent Cities Challenge (ICC), a European Commission initiative 
that supports 136 cities in using cutting-edge technologies to lead the intelligent, green 
and socially responsible recovery. Le Havre’s main goal in participating in the ICC was to 
develop a roadmap for the digital transformation of the city, based on the needs and 
wishes of its citizens. It aims to raise awareness of the city’s inhabitants on how advanced 
technology can be used to improve their daily lives. For Le Havre, the ICC is a forum and 
facilitator to rally the city’s digital local ecosystem around a common cause. 

Le Havre wishes to develop a community of champions of digital transformation and to 
shape a strong vision for the future in the next 10-15 years. The city expects the ICC to be 
a catalyst of this process, bringing unique skills and expertise while fostering the city’s 
connections across Europe. Ultimately, the city hopes that the ICC will be an inspiration to 
bring digital solutions closer to the people. 

More information: ICC Website 

•  The city as a participatory-driven and open innovation ecosystem should promote an open 
and  collaborative  approach  that  takes  into  consideration  the  opinion  of  individuals  and 
organisations,  and  thereby  builds  on  participatory  approaches,  such  as  co-creation  and  co-
production.  

Recommendation #5 

Ensure collaboration and communication between inhabitants, business, visitors, 
organisations and city/community administrators, in your city/community, so that 
different needs (e.g. assisted living, social care, health, education, culture and 
environment), challenges and requirements are addressed in a collaborative way by 
involving stakeholders with all the necessary competencies and/or skills in the co-creation 
and co-production of services. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use case 

Porto, Portugal 

Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Porto (SCMP) is a charity and social assistance institution. 
The SCMP supports the most vulnerable, being one of the main players in the region in 
the areas of Health, Social Services, Education, Culture and Environment and is continually 
looking for new answers to the problems that society is facing.  

The organisation, in collaboration with businesses, is developing innovative, efficient and 
tailor-made solutions that meet the needs of the elderly. These needs are identified based 
on the experience of SCMP with the elderly people. 

For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the institution launched the “Remote 
Visiting” initiative that allows the elderly to communicate with their family/ friends, 
returning this way to the routine of visits, which is essential for the well-being of old 
people. 

More information: Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Porto Website 

Recommendation #6 

Foster an open innovation ecosystem (such as local living labs, digital innovation hubs) to 
ensure that the local community is actively involved in creating new and scaling up 
solutions. 

Use case 

Graz, Austria 

The city of Graz has a long-term “Smart City Strategy” that includes mobility measures 
prioritising public transport, e-mobility investments and city logistics. 

The city conducted a living lab experiment that engaged local stakeholders to ‘smartly’ 
redesign Griesplatz, a square in the centre of Graz. Griesplatz is an important  hub for both 
mobility and services : private vehicles, public transport, pedestrian and cyclist zones, local 
goods supply, housing and services and institutions of all sorts.. 

This experiment consisted of five phases: 1) identifying key stakeholders; 2) gathering 
inputs from stakeholders; 3) organising a design competition; 4) Incorporating the results 
of the competition in the final architectural (re)design of Griesplatz and; 5) evaluation of 
the impact of the living lab. 

It is expected that the living Lab experiment will increase the chances of a successful smart 
renovation of the square, reduce the risk of a socio-technical ‘misfit’ (i.e.: technical 
solutions that do not respond to the demands and concerns of stakeholders), as well as 
the risk of excluding certain social groups (especially non-smart groups, by approaching 
them ‘on street’ and inviting them in the participative activities), while at the same time 
increasing the legitimacy of the final design. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
More information: University of Graz Website 

•  Ethical  and  socially  responsible  access,  use,  sharing  and  management  of  data  and 
technology,  that  considers  transparency,  security  and  privacy.  The  protection  of  the 
individuals’ privacy, the preservation of their information and its security must be guaranteed 
as well as the right of the individual to be forgotten. 

Recommendation #7 

Make sources of information (base registries, open data portals, etc.) available to 
inhabitants, business, visitors, organisations and city/community administrators ensuring 
security, trust and privacy in accordance with the relevant legislation and contribute to 
the EU data space for climate neutral and smart communities. 

Use case 

Prague, Czech Republic 

Golemio Prague Capital City’s data platform to promote the re-usability of data to find 
more smart solutions. The platform serves as a single information point where data about 
the city can be found and analysed. The website allows people to find datasets that they 
can analyse and process to gain additional insights.  

Golemio provides data on different aspects of Prague, such as the pollution levels, modes 
of transportation, street lights, Wi-Fi locations and USB charging points. 

Open data is collected from the municipality of the Capital City of Prague and is used to 
provide information and map visualisations about different aspects of the city. 

Experts are encouraged to re-use data on the platform to create websites, applications or 
prediction models for the city. 

More information: Official Portal for European Data 

Recommendation #8 

Ensure that digital rights are respected during the design, development, implementation 
and monitoring phase of the services provision (including GDPR issues). 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use case 

Bordeaux, France 

The city of Bordeaux signed the Declaration of the Cities Coalition for Digital Rights aiming 
to protect and uphold human rights on the internet at the local and global level, showing 
its willingness to take play a greater part in digital policy.  

With the signature of this declaration, Bordeaux aims to implement several actions, such 
as: i) Pursuing a public data policy involving citizens and the business ecosystem; ii) 
Ensuring transparency in the use of collected data; iii) Including  support and information 
provision for citizens with the launch of each new digital service. 

More information: Cities for Digital Rights Website 

Recommendation #9 

Ensure transparency on data sharing collaborations between and within government, 
citizens, businesses and organisations. 

Use case 

Across cities, Nordic Smart Governance (NSG) 

The NSG aims to simplify the life of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in the 
Nordic region. For that it is adapting its use of business data and making this available for 
public and private stakeholders in real-time.  

This aims to increase innovation and growth in the region and the boost SMEs 
productivity by reducing their administrative burden. 

This collaboration uses real-time access to business transactions from businesses’ 
enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, establishing machine-readable interfaces to 
real-time data from businesses’ supporting systems and assessing how data can be 
gathered from the source. 

The programme will create value for businesses, public authorities and society by sharing 
data across the region in an automatic, intelligent and secure manner. 

More information: Nordic Smart Governance Website 

•  Technologies as key enablers, not as the objective. Technology should only be considered as 
an enabler when appropriate. Technological neutrality and data portability should be taken 
into  account  when  developing  services.  Open  standards  and  open  technical  specifications 
should be employed in the development of interoperable digital platforms. This will require 
an  appropriate  assessment  of  technologies  effectiveness  and  efficiency.  Hence,  the  use  of 
technologies  must  consider  the  development  of  digital  skills  and  capacities  of  the  service 
providers and the users.  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Open standards and open technical specifications avoid vendor or technology lock in and 
enable interoperability while fostering the smart city ecosystem and the related digital 
solutions market. The level of openness of a specification/standard is decisive for the reuse 
of software components implementing that specification. This also applies when such 
components are used to introduce new services. If the openness principle is applied in full: 

o  all  stakeholders  have  the  opportunity  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  the 

specification and a public review is part of the decision-making process; 
the specification is available for everyone; 
intellectual property rights to the specification are licensed on Fair, Reasonable and 
Non-Discriminatory  (FRAND)  terms,  in  a  way  that  allows  implementation  in  both 
proprietary and open source software, and preferably on a royalty-free basis. 

o 
o 

Recommendation #10 

Use open standards and open technical specifications when developing local data 
platform and services, include multiple access and assistance channels to ensure that 
users can choose the option that best addresses their needs and/or preferences. 

Use case 

Cascais, Portugal 

The City of Cascais implemented a large portfolio of technology-based services ranging 
from energy-efficient buildings to remote parking payments. The city’s ecosystem of 
players continues to evolve and new initiatives are implemented continuously. However, 
a lack a unified vision across domains was an obstacle to real progress on the ground.  

The plan entailed redefining the city’s operational model by integrating data and 
processes from each vertical domain, ensuring improved quality of citizen services as well 
as delivering savings based on greater effectiveness and efficiency. 

In order to do this, the city deployed the city's operating system - to: i) Centralise different 
technical verticals in a multidisciplinary room; ii) Ensure coordination with 
internal/external entities; iii) Enable predictive management through event correlation 
and data analytics; iv) Facilitate decision-making and urban planning. 

The solution picks the right combination of frameworks, widely known standards and 
specifications, languages and software products, allowing multiple access points (Emails, 
App, Web, Integrated with IVR, APIs, etc.). 

More information: Municipality of Cascais Website 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendation #11 

Implement seamless solutions at the service of inhabitants, businesses, visitors, 
organisations and city/community administrators, leveraging advanced technologies (such 
as IoT, blockchain, AI, etc.). 

Use case 

Milan, Italy 

The city of Milan ranks third amongst large European cities in its atmospheric 
concentrations of particulate matter. Milan has also one of the highest European rates of 
car ownership – one that is also among the highest in the world. It is relevant for Milan to 
reduce traffic congestion and CO2 emissions by improving control and visualisation of 
transportation grid status across multiple transport systems, increasing the efficiency and 
safety of the transport system.  

To do this, the Municipality of Milan is leveraging IoT solutions to tackle air pollution and 
associated health risks due to mobility: 

•  43 electronic gates equipped with Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology 
are already in use to support the congestion charging scheme (Area C) to prevent 
polluting vehicles from entering the city centre. 

•  A  Low  Emission  Zone  (LEZ),  that  discourages  heavily  polluting  vehicles  from 
entering  the  whole  city  (not  only  in  the  centre)  has  been  gradually  introduced. 
Currently, systems are set to control and manage the heaviest vehicles and those 
used for the transport of dangerous goods. 

The effects of these measures are monitored with the help of IoT sensors such as air 
pollution sensors, weather sensors and traffic loops.  

More information: Synchornicity Website 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

Athens, Greece 

DAEM SA, an IT Company based in the City of Athens, has developed for the Municipality 
an eServices platform targeting the online citizens’ requests process. The platform is a 
user-friendly innovative solution in Greece, currently adopted and implemented in other 
Greek cities, under the supervision, consultation and maintenance of the City of Athens.  

The eServices access complies with the national requirements on interoperability and 
access control covering a wide range of municipal requests and documents certification, 
issued by many administrative procedures. In parallel, eServices consists of a usable tool 
for public service employees to get real-time notification on citizens requests , by 
reducing the processing time and avoid on-site appointments. Finally, the overall 
administrative dashboard includes features to be used by statistical analysis and reports 
that support decision making processes. 

96 

 
 
 
 
The Athens eServices is also connected with other agencies, city-systems and with more 
than 90 features such the GIS applications of the city and the central city registry, 
including open-source tools ensuring the scalability and interoperability of the platform. 

More information: Digital Services of the Municipality of Athens Website 

Recommendation #12 

Set-up or consolidate interoperable local data platform(s) that integrate and reuse data in 
cities and communities by stakeholders, and promotes open standards and open technical 
specifications, APIs16 and data models to provide a holistic view of the information. This 
aims to support in decision-making process and to foster innovation and citizen 
engagement. 

Use case 

Amsterdam, Netherlands 

The Amsterdam Data Exchange (AMdEX) is an innovation fieldlab in which several 
stakeholders collaborate to develop and test trusted, fair and scalable solutions to support 
the need of datamarkets in which its users can decide with whom to interact and under 
which conditions. 

AmdEX aims to provide broad access to data from/for researchers, companies and private 
individuals. Inspired by the Open Science Cloud of the European Commission, the project 
is intended to connect with similar projects across Europe. 

In the AmdEX fieldlab the following use cases will be tested: 

•  Aircraft maintenance data market 
•  Smart mobility data market 
•  Materials data market 
•  Research data market 

More information: AmdEX Website 

16 Directive 91/250 (or 2009/24/EC) 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4.3.5. Tailored Layers and Components for the EIF4SCC 

Figure 14 - EIF4SCC Elements 

The desk research, workshops with city experts and interviews with Interoperability and SCC experts 
demonstrated that while the interoperability layers in the 2017 European Interoperability 
Framework are highly relevant for the EIF4SCC, it was considered necessary to tailor the approach to 
take into account the context at local level and the wider thematic scope and broader range of 
actors, both public and private, engaged in the smart city and community ecosystem. Among the 
most important differences in the EIF4SCC is the replacement of the layers in the EIF to elements of a 
collaborative model. According to the experts interviewed, it is important to have an approach that is 
less hierarchical and more collaborative than the ‘layers’ contained in the 2017 EIF. Figure  14 
presents the elements of the EIF4SCC interoperability model. It is built on five components, one 
cross-cutting layer, all built on the foundation of Interoperability Governance. The following 
interoperability components have been identified:  

1) Cultural interoperability,
2) Legal interoperability,
3) Organisational interoperability,
4) Semantic interoperability and,
5) Technical interoperability.

The cross-cutting layer refers to Integrated Service Governance. These five components and cross-
cutting layer occur against the background of the Interoperability Governance.  

98 

Figure 15 - The elements of the EIF4SCC interoperability model 

This EIF4SCC interoperability model retains some characteristics of the 2017 European 
Interoperability Framework. This ensures a common European approach to interoperability. In 
addition to the revised layered design, the main changes in the EIF4SCC are the addition of Cultural 
Interoperability and the modification of Integrated Public Service Governance, which is re-labelled as 
Integrated Service Governance. 

Background: 

• 

Interoperability  governance  is  key  to  a  holistic  approach  to  interoperability,  referring  to 
decisions  on 
institutional  arrangements,  organisational 
structures, roles and responsibilities, policies, agreements and other aspects of ensuring and 
monitoring interoperability at local, national and EU levels.  

interoperability  frameworks, 

Recommendation #13 

Define and implement a holistic governance of interoperability services across domains and 
stakeholders at the local level, complying with national and European interoperability 
requirements to ensure interoperability across cities/communities, regions and borders. 

Use case 

Slovenia 

The Slovenian National Interoperability Framework (NIO) represents the central metadata 
framework for the coordinated development of public sector eServices. The Slovenian NIO 
portal repositories can be used as catalogues, containing information on collections and 
structures of data, their use, administrators, or persons, responsible for data, etc. 

Moreover, the Slovenian NIO represents the national concept of public administration 
functioning, directed towards sustainable development and management of electronic 
business. 

More information: Slovenian NIO Website | EC Joinup Page 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Cross-cutting layer: 

• 

is  removed.,  The  cross-cutting 

Integrated service governance. The 2017 EIF refers to the public nature of services and states 
that European public service provision often requires different public administrations to work 
together to meet end-users’ needs and provide public services in an integrated way. In the 
EIF4SCC  the  concept  public 
layer  becomes  broader, 
acknowledging  the  role  of  non-public  administration  actors  in  the  service  provision  in  the 
context of SCC. As a substantial amount of data and information in a SCC context is out of the 
hands of public administrations, the Integrated service governance has to take a broader view 
and not look beyond the public administration itself. Therefore, Integrated service governance 
refers  to  the  governance  context  and  encompasses  all  components:  cultural,  legal, 
organisational,  semantic  and  technical  interoperability.  Ensuring  interoperability  when 
agreeing the cultural context, preparing legal instruments, organising collaboration processes, 
data  and  information  exchange,  services  and  components  that  support  SCC  services  is  a 
continuous  task,  as  interoperability  is  regularly  disrupted  by  changes  to  the  environment. 
Integrated service governance results in an integrated service pathway and shared workflows.  

Recommendation #14 

Reuse and share solutions, data, tools and services by cooperating with different 
stakeholders in the design, development, implementation and monitoring phase of  
service  provision at local, regional, national and European levels. 

Use case 

Helsinki, Turku and Tampere, Finland 

The cities of Helsinki, Turku and Tampere are working together to implement the 6Aika 
Carbon Neutral Tourism project. This project aims to implement a new operating model 
using data and digital tools to promote carbon neutrality and improved energy efficiency 
within the tourism industry in cooperation with the cities of Helsinki, Turku and Tampere 
and various tourism operators. 

The project is defining applicable indicators and develop and correlate relevant data 
sources such as air traffic data, road traffic data, hotel booking nights and business data. 
These data are being combined into a shared database and transformed into usable and 
readily available information supported by smart solutions to reduce emissions generated 
by the tourism industry. 

The data can then be used to determine for example the correct level of hotel 
investments, identify sustainable destination markets, guide tourist flows sustainably and 
efficiently, discover hidden seasons, and balance year-round tourism. Businesses can also 
make concrete changes to their services, at the local level.  

By consolidating all the data in one place and leveraging Artificial Intelligence or machine 
learning, the entire industry can make more sustainable choices based on accurate 
information. Energy efficiency can also be improved by providing businesses with specific 
evidence-based development targets to reduce consumption. 

100 

 
 
 
 
The smart solutions, together with the industry tourism operators and public 
stakeholders, will build the digital tools required and develop and pilot a CO2-TIS (Carbon 
Neutral Tourism Intelligence System) operating model. 

More information: 6Aika Website 

Recommendation #15 

Establish and maintain an integrated governance structure with relevant stakeholders to 
ensure interoperability in the delivery of the integrated services, in coordination with the 
holistic interoperability governance guidance. 

Use case 

Madrid, Spain 

Madrid has launched a digital transformation office, which inter alia, aims to promote and 
coordinate interoperability with other administrations and with other actors working with 
the national government, city departments and other city stakeholders. 

As part of this office, Madrid City Council has ensured internal coordination in the national 
action for the use of common interoperability solutions (European Interoperability 
Framework via ENI - Esquema nacional de interoperabilidad), data exchange (PID y SIR) as 
well as citizen identification mechanisms (Cl@ve, aligned with the European eIDAS 
framework). 

More information: Madrid City Council Government Agreement 2019-2023 

Recommendation #16 

Establish, publish and maintain API design framework(s) to facilitate the automation of 
data sharing and data access for cities and communities to enable the development of 
(new) services and solutions. 

Use case 

Region of Lombardy, Milan 

The Region of Lombardy has been publishing open data and open geoservices for more 
than 10 years. One of its strategic goals is to use an API-driven approach to open the 
overall Regional Information System and spread “public value” to inhabitants, businesses, 
visitors, organisations and city/ community administrators, and encourage public-private 
partnerships to share APIs and co-design and implement new digital public services. 

The Region of Lombardy and ARIA s.p.a, the regional in-house organisation responsible for 
digital innovation and public procurement, are collaborating with the European 
Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) in a pilot project to validate the JRC API 
framework proposal “Government API Best Practices and Guidelines: Proposals for an 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence-Based, EU-wide API framework” and has been using the “Government API 
Framework Maturity Instruments” proposed by the JRC to assess their API Programme 
and gain a better understanding of where and what they need to improve. 

More information: Region of Lombardy Website 

Recommendation #17 

Support and/or promote best practices among stakeholders, at an early stage of any 
(new) service design, development and implementation phase.  

Use case 

Hungary 

ISA2 

Based on the experiences of previous low-impact local government digitalisation projects, 
isolated back-office solutions and a lack of interoperability at local public administrative 
level, the Hungarian Government has decided that local government IT developments 
must be continued in a more centralised way. To promote unified technical quality 
standards and ensuring optimal use of investment and operational resources, a 
centralised application service providing (ASP) model has been chosen to promote local 
government digitalisation in Hungary. The application service provider (ASP) model is 
largely used worldwide in many business sectors and public administrations as a cost-
effective solution and allows the software to be accessed remotely via a simple web 
browser. 

More information: European Commission Website 

Components: 

•  Cultural interoperability refers to the approach taken by individuals and organisations to take 
into  consideration  their  social  and  cultural  differences  and,  if  applicable,  organisational 
cultural  differences.  Interoperability  can  be  impacted  by  cultural  differences,  as  individuals 
and  organisations  can  respond  differently  to  the  same  interoperability  challenge.  These 
cultural differences can, for example, be reflected in political challenges and leadership styles. 
Different actors within a smart city can have varying views on how leadership, in the context 
of interoperability, is exercised. This requires a debate among the actors involved about how 
to exercise leadership in their interoperability context.  

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendation #18 

Ensure that diverse stakeholders (inhabitants, businesses, visitors, organisations and 
cities/ communities administrators) are involved in a multidisciplinary process of 
definition and/or design of interoperable services so that societal and cultural differences 
(organisational, economic, ethnic, religious beliefs, gender, language) are accounted for. 

Use case 

Leuven, Belgium 

The Leuven 2030 roadmap was developed in a co-creation and co-design process between 
research institutes, companies, local government and citizens. People from different 
nationalities, religions, political views, gender and socio-economic background were 
included when defining all these actions to achieve carbon neutrality in the city of Leuven. 

Leuven 2030 represents all actors in the society. The close cooperation between 
knowledge institutions, companies, local government, and citizens is known as the 
quadruple helix, a unique model. As a result of the success and effectiveness of this 
concept, Leuven was awarded the Green Leaf Award 2018 and the European Capital of 
Innovation Award 2020. 

More information: Leuven 2030 Website 

Recommendation #19 

Monitor and audit software codes and ensure transparent and accountable use of AI 
algorithms, to avoid biases (economic, ethnic, religious beliefs, gender, etc.) that can 
discriminate people. 

Use case 

Helsinki, Finland 

The city of Helsinki uses the AI Register as a foundation to tackle the problem of harmful 
effects of algorithms, incomplete datasets and biased developers and as a window into 
the artificial intelligence systems to make fairer decisions with a positive impact on its 
stakeholders. 

Through the AI register, inhabitants, business, visitors, organisations and city/community 
administrators can access a quick overview of the city's artificial intelligence systems and 
examine the information in greater depth based on their own interests.  

The city uses AI as part of their city services and these include: housing and environment, 
social services and health care, and culture and leisure. 

More information: City of Helsinki Website 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

Legal interoperability is about ensuring that individuals and organisations, be they public or 
non-public  organisations,  operating  under  different  legal  and  regulatory  frameworks, 
procurement  rules,  policies  and  strategies,  can  work  together.  Policies,  regulations  and 
legislation should enable the establishment of services within a SCC and between different 
SCCs, rather than being an obstacle. There is a need for clear agreements about how to deal 
with  differences  in  policies,  regulations  and  legislation  across  SCCs,  including  the  option  of 
putting in place new policies, regulations and legislation. The sharing of data is for example 
strongly influenced by legal interoperability, as this requires the development and use of data 
licences.   

Recommendation #20 

Put in place a solid and trusted legal framework to enable and facilitate data sharing across 
stakeholders and across domains at local, regional, national and European level. 

Use case 

Netherlands 

The Privacy by Design Foundation creates and maintains free and open-source software in 
which the privacy of the user is paramount. The most important application of the 
foundation is the identity platform IRMA, an acronym of I Reveal my Attributes.  

IRMA is a unique privacy-friendly identity platform for both authentication and signing, 
empowering the citizens to disclose some of their attributes online (“over 18”) while at 
the same time hides other (like their name, or phone number), and being able to 
authenticate themselves to, for example, login on a website, protecting this way their 
privacy. 

More information: IRMA Website 

Recommendation #21 

Communicate the right to access and reuse of solutions, data, tools and services. The legal 
permission for facilitating access and reuse, such as Creative Commons Licenses, should 
be standardised as much as possible. 

Use case 

Lisbon, Portugal: 

“Lisboa Aberta” is a free data sharing portal produced by the Lisbon City Council and the 
partner entities of the Lisboa Aberta program, with the aim of enhancing citizen 
participation, encouraging the reuse and sharing of data, stimulating entrepreneurship 
and innovation. The catalogue allows the user to navigate through data from: public 
administration and justice, environment, culture, sports, economy and innovation, 
education, urban management, amongst others. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The use of the data is free of charge and the rights related to users' accessibility are 
licensed under the Creative Commons CC Zero Attribution 1.0 license. 

More information: Lisboa Aberta Website 

•  Organisational interoperability refers to the way in which organisations align their processes, 
responsibilities  and  expectations  to  achieve  commonly  agreed  goals.  Organisational 
interoperability  means  documenting,  integrating  or  aligning  processes  and  exchanging 
relevant information. Organisational interoperability also aims to meet the requirements of 
users  by  making  services  available,  easily 
identifiable,  accessible  and  user-focused. 
Furthermore,  active  involvement  of  the  user  community  can  be  part  of  the  organisational 
interoperability component. 

Recommendation #22 

Put in place an organisational structure to establish and maintain clear roles and 
responsibilities of processes to deliver services at local level. 

Use case 

Berlin, Germany: 

In 2016 the city of Berlin issued its Berlin law on e-government (E-Government Gesetz 
Berlin) that was a real game changer for digital services in the city. Before 2016 city IT 
services were developed mostly independently by over 100 different entities on municipal 
and central level. This led to several hundred different solutions of very different levels of 
maturity and with no safeguards for interoperability.  

With the 2016- law, Berlin introduced a central IT governance led by a Minister of State 
with clear tasks and mandates. The new central entity provides a central ICT architecture 
with cross-cutting building blocks that have to be (re)used for all ICT solutions in the cities. 
The solutions for the different portfolios (social, environment etc.) are to be developed by 
the different ministries respecting the common architectural model. Organisational 
interoperability got a real boost as the law foresees that before providing a digital solution 
the service has to prove that the underlying business processes were optimised. A 
cooperation mechanism on business process management between implementing 
municipality and central city ensures that the same concepts are reused in the description 
of business processes. First use cases show that this also has a positive impact on the 
drafting of new digital-ready policies. 

More information: City of Berlin Website 

•  Semantic interoperability ensures that the precise format and meaning of exchanged data 
and information is preserved and understood throughout exchanges between individuals and 
organisations.  Semantic  interoperability  covers  both  semantic  and  syntactic  aspects:  The 
semantic aspect refers to the meaning of data elements and the relationship between them. 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It  includes  data  models,  controlled  vocabularies  and  common  code  lists  to  describe  data 
exchanges  and  ensures  that  data  elements  are  understood  in  the  same  way  by  all 
communicating  parties.  The  syntactic  aspect  refers  to  describing  the  exact  format  of  the 
information to be exchanged in terms of grammar and format. 

Recommendation #23 

Work towards a commonly agreed description and understanding of the solutions, data, 
tools and services (format, meaning of data, relationship between parties), across 
stakeholders and across domains at local, regional, national and European level. 

, meaning of 

Use case 

Flanders region, Belgium 

Flanders is running a project that ensures an automated update of data in databases – 
Local Decisions as Linked Open Data LBLOD. 

The project launched in 2015 aims to publish local decisions as Linked Open Data so that 
this information can be exchanged automatically between local and higher authorities, 
making it easier to re-use information reducing the administrative burden, simplifying 
decision-making processes, transparency and providing better and more efficient services 
to its inhabitants, business, visitors, organisations and city/community administrators. 

As the data is published online, this project ensures that data from local decisions can also 
be re-used by non-state actors, creating an open government that is transparent and open 
to the outside world. 

More information: Flanders Region Website 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

Trentino region, Italy 

The Consortium of Trentino Municipalities and the Autonomous province of Trento have 
developed a socio-technical platform to manage web sites and digital services. The 
platform allows for the municipalities of Trentino to exchange their public data through 
the use of APIs, automatically documented; no agreement is required between the parties 
and there are no implementation costs. 

The APIs generate real time and updated datasets, published as Open Data, which can be 
used by mobile Apps and chatbots. 

Moreover, the homogeneity of the data structure (designed according to ISA² standards) 
makes data aggregation and monitoring feasible: data are collected and displayed as 
tables, graphs and maps on a monitoring dashboard, automatically. 

To ensure a common understanding of data and information across the several 
municipalities' public authorities, that were previously working independently, a catalogue 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
of public services, an Open Data catalogue (collection of APIs) and a one-stop-shop of 
digital forms have been prepared, open sources and very accessible costs. 

More information: Comunweb Website | Developers Italia Website 

•  Technical interoperability refers to the inclusion of interface specifications, interconnection 
services,  data 
integration  services,  data  presentation  and  exchange,  and  secure 
communication protocols. Furthermore, when applying standards they should be available in 
an  open  format.  Open  technical  specifications  should  be  tailored  to  the  specific  context  in 
which  they  will  be  used.  For  example,  from  a  technical  interoperability  point  of  view,  the 
Minimal  Interoperability  Mechanisms  (MIMs  Plus)  and  the  CEF  Building  Blocks,  based  on 
commonly  agreed  open  standards  and  open  technical  specifications,  ensure  achieving 
interoperability of data, systems, and services between cities and suppliers around the world, 
and can guide those working on interoperability in a SCC ecosystem.  

Recommendation #24 

Create more horizontal services towards local data platforms, to overcome silos within 
different domains, by encouraging collaboration and engagement among inhabitants, 
business, visitors, organisations and city/community administrators. 

Use case 

Copenhagen, Denmark 

Copenhagen’s City Data Exchange (CDE) aims to break down application silos by 
integrating and sharing city data through a collaborative effort involving 50 companies. 
The economies of scale resulting from this strategy lower the costs of data management 
for all participants.   

The city decided to invest in the creation of a marketplace for the exchange of public, and 
private sector data. The initial investment was meant as a seed towards a self-sustained 
marketplace. This was an innovative approach to test the readiness of the market to 
deliver new data-sharing solutions. 

More information: Smart Cities World Website | Atis Smart Cities Data Sharing 
Framework 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendation #25 

Develop and provide seamless services where inhabitants, businesses, visitors and 
organisations are able to identify and authenticate using eID schemes. 

Use case 

Netherlands  

CEF Digital 

The eIDAS 2018 Municipalities Project is one of the early implementations of the mutual 
recognition principle of European eIDs to access public services introduced by the eIDAS 
regulation.  

It enables citizens of EU Member States and EEA countries to electronically prove their 
identity with their nationally issued eID when seeking access to around 300 services in 81 
municipalities across the Netherlands.  

This project not only allows an easier access of the end-user to public services but it also 
significantly reduces the administrative burden - there is no need to maintain multiple 
databases and spend resources on collating and cross verifying information across borders 
and jurisdictions. 

The solution is currently available for Austrian, German and Belgian eID holders, and 
should progressively be extended to other countries connecting to the eIDAS network. 

More information: CEF Digital Website 

Recommendation #26 

Use commonly agreed open standards and open technical specifications for achieving 
interoperability of data, systems, and services, to support cities/ communities and 
suppliers during the design, development and implementation phase of new services or 
reengineer existing ones (to avoid “reinventing the wheel”). 

Use case 

Japan 

The Japanese government has launched the “Super City Initiative” to deliver the benefits 
of digital transformation to their inhabitants, business, visitors, organisations and 
city/community administrators. 

The aim of this initiative is to launch Japanese cities into a new age of urban planning and 
to offer better and more efficient services. The Super City initiative pays particular 
attention to and considers European benchmarks like the General Data Protection 
Regulation, the once only principle and the minimal interoperability mechanisms (MIMs 
Plus) as these are needed to achieve digital transformation of their cities. 

More information: OASC Website 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendation #27 

Use and raise awareness of the benefits of open standards and open technical 
specifications amongst SCC service providers, during the design, development and 
implementation phase. 

Use case 

Tartu, Estonia 

The city of Tartu is developing a 3D city information model that brings together as many 
meaningful city information datasets that currently exist separately, in different formats 
and in different databases. 

The value of this exercise is to demonstrate the level of effort needed to integrate data 
from different databases and in different formats to such a 3D city information model 
based on open standards, facilitating interoperability and data exchange among different 
products or services.  

More information: Espresso Project Website 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

Lisbon, Portugal: 

During the public procurement process, to set up the Intelligent Platform of Lisbon, the 
use of a set of standards to be followed based on Fiware, an open source middleware 
platform, was mandatory.  

The Intelligent Platform of Lisbon is a technological solution that provides capacity for 
monitoring, analysis and management of the entire local ecosystem, based on the use of 
open technologies. 

More information: Smart Portugal Website 

Recommendation #28 

Ensure a local level playing field for open source software and demonstrate active and fair 
consideration to increase the quality and interoperability solution and become more cost-
efficient. 

Use case 

Barcelona, Spain: 

The city has a set of Ethical Digital Standards: A Policy Toolkit, which is an open source 
Policy Toolkit for cities to develop digital policies that put citizens at the centre and drive 
governments to become more open, transparent, and collaborative. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Barcelona City Council Open Digitisation Plan defines a process of profound, 
progressive change in the way the city will develop and offer its services to its citizens. It 
aims for radical improvement in digital public services, based on their Ethical Digital 
Standards, including in particular the use of free software, open standards, data 
sovereignty, developing digital services in an agile manner, and ensuring privacy, ethics 
and security by design. 

More information: City of Barcelona Website 

Recommendation #29 

Develop apps/ digital services ensuring that these are open by default (even if not using 
open standards and open technical specifications, the apps/ digital services should allow 
integration with others through APIs, to boost the digital transformation at local level). 

Use case 

Espoo, Finland:  

The city of Espoo offers the REST, an open interface on the espoo.fi website in which users 
can search for news, events, projects, electronic services, announcements and basic 
content documents. The interface covers all three language versions of the espoo.fi 
website (Finnish, Swedish, and English). The search can be limited by content type. 

More information: City of Espoo Website 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

Finland:  

Finland is adapting the API framework suggested by the European Commission. The 
framework structures actions to be taken by organisations to better profit of their API 
infrastructure. The framework offers twelve ‘proposals’ arranged around four 
organisational pillars, namely, policy support, platforms and ecosystems, people, and 
processes. The twelve proposals, inspired by the European Interoperability Framework 
(EIF) of the European Commission, were created following an extensive and deep 
systematic review that assessed available documents on current government API 
strategies, guidelines, related policies and action plans in digital government and other 
areas, and private industry best practice guidelines.  

The main goal of API policies is to create a shared set of principles for API development in 
public administrations in Finland. Further goals include promotion of a customer-driven 
approach, cooperation, reusability, interoperability, information security and data 
protection and quality API development. Common principles will promote the coherent 
use of data and functions, primarily through APIs. 

More information: European Commission Website 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3.6. Tailored Conceptual Model for the EIF4SCC 

Figure 16 - EIF4SCC Conceptual Model 

The SCC conceptual model aims to support the understanding of local administration leaders for the 
planning, development, operation and maintenance of integrated SCC services. The conceptual model 
is  developed  from  a  generalised  SCC  ecosystem  perspective.  As  a  result,  it  serves  as  a  generalised 
model and may need to  be adapted according to the specific  context of local administrations. The 
conceptual model is in line with the 2017 European Interoperability Framework and proposes the idea 
of  “interoperability  by  design”,  meaning  that  the  integrated  SCC  services  should  be  designed  in 
accordance with the proposed model and with interoperability and reusability requirements in mind.  

The conceptual model for the Integrated SCC Services, is presented in Figure 17. 

Figure 17 - Conceptual model for Integrated SCC Services 

The model includes six essential elements and its related interactions. The elements are 1) Service 
Users, 2) Integrated SCC Services, 3) Service Providers, 4) Data Sources & Services, 5) Technology 
and 6) Security & Privacy. These six elements are explained below. 

111 

1. Service  Users,  such  as  inhabitants,
visitors, businesses, organisations and
city/community  administrators  make
use  of  the  services  offered  by  the
Service Providers. Service Users can take an active role by providing their input through co-creation 
and  coproduction  processes  in  the  Integrated  SCC  Services.  Service  Users  can  also  provide  their 
input via technology, which might lead to improved services offered to them. This dynamic implies 
a continuous exchange of data, guarantying security and privacy. 

Integrated  Smart  City/Community  Services  are
2.
services offered to Service Users by Service Providers.
Integrated SCC Services may be offered by the public
sector or though collaboration between the public and
non-public  sector.  Examples  range  from  the  development  of  services  that  are  cloud-based  and
provide a  user-friendly interface for Service  Users  to the  development of a  Local Digital  Twin.  A
Digital Twin is a digital copy of the city or community that allows policy decisions to be tested in a
digital environment. These services can make use of building blocks that are available for reuse.
Examples of such building blocks are the ISA² solutions and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)
Building Blocks, which offer basic capabilities and can be used in any European project to facilitate
the  delivery  of  digital  public  services  across  borders.  Examples  of  ISA²  and  CEF  Building  Blocks
include the Core Vocabularies, eSignature and eInvoicing.

local  public
3. Service  providers,  such  as 
administrations, businesses and societal actors
can provide a great variety of services to Service
the
Users.  Those 

services 

range 

from 

registration of the birth of a child, to the waste collection at your home 
or the management of the streetlights during the night. The interaction 
between Service Providers and Service Users in the SCC can occur within 
a  Common  SCC  Council.  The  aim  of  the  Council  is  to  facilitate  the 
delivery of services in the SCC.  

The Council provides an interaction stage for Service Providers and Service Users. This Council can 
take a leading role in identifying service needs, in planning how to handle service needs, in executing 
the plans regarding services and in evaluating the achievement of the objectives.  

Figure 18 - Common SCC Council 

Considering  that  the  Common  SCC  Council  is  an  interaction  ground  in  the  relation  between  the 
Service Users and Service Providers, it is important to reflect on the organisation of the Council. The 
different actors of a SCC should decide on how they want to organise the Council so that it can 
function  according  to  their  needs  and  context.  This  interaction  can  lead  to  co-creation  and 
coproduction processes. Figure 5 offers a detailed view of the Common SCC Council. The Council 
112 

can be developed taking into account different possible service domains as well as the interactions 
between  those domains  – think of Smart Economy  (e.g. entrepreneurship, economic  grown and 
value  creation),  Smart  Governance  (e.g.  public  participation,  public-private  partnerships, 
transparent  governance),  Smart  Environment  (e.g.  waste  management,  sustainable  energy  use, 
water  resilience),  Smart  Living  (e.g.  housing  quality,  urban  safety,  educational  quality,  cultural 
facilities),  Smart  People  (e.g.  skills  &  talented  human  capital,  a  caring  community)  and  Smart 
Mobility (e.g. public transport systems, efficient road accessibility).  

4. Data Sources & Services consists of
two aspects. The first aspect is focused
on the data sources available in a SCC.
Data  can  be  gathered  by  both  Service
Providers and Service Users, through Smart Sensors, Internet of Things, Software Applications, etc. 

Data can be classified as open, shared or closed, depending on privacy and security considerations. 

• Open data is available for reuse by third parties with minimal restrictions. In the EU, the
concept of open data denotes the specific relationship of public administrations opening
their  data  with  a  minimum  set  of  restrictions  towards  third  parties  (whereby  limited
financial compensations can still apply)17.

•

•

Shared data is an intermediate category. This is data that is not shared as open data, but it
is available for third parties while respecting certain conditions. Those conditions are more
restrictive than those governing open data.

Finally, closed data has a restricted use and cannot be shared with third parties.

The  sharing  and  opening  of  data  can  apply  to  all  actors  in  the  smart  city  or  community.  Public 
administration  actors  can  share  data  with  non-public  administration  actors  and  vice  versa.  Data 
should be structured in data catalogues that support service providers to find reusable data sources. 
Data from public administration can be recognised in the format of a base registry. A base registry 
is a trusted and authoritative source of information which can and should be digitally reused by 
others,  where  one  actor  is  responsible  and  accountable  for  the  collection,  use,  updating  and 
preservation  of  information.  From  the  perspective  of  non-public  administration,  it  could  also  be 
relevant to reflect on the possibilities offered by the development of base registries. This requires 
the  necessary  legal  framework  and  agreements  with  the  public  administration  actors.  Base 
registries can facilitate the application of the once only principle, the reuse of data and documents 
that service users have already supplied, in a transparent and secure way.  

In line with data, services can be classified as open, shared or closed. 

• When services are available in an open format, they can be reused by third parties with a

minimal set of restrictions.

•

•

Shared services are also reusable, but the reuse will be restricted to certain conditions –
e.g.  time  limitations,  allowed  number  of  users,  restrictions  on  which  type  of  actors  can
reuse it.

Closed services are not available for reuse by third parties.

The European Commission, as well as national and regional public administrations, have developed 
building blocks. These are services that are available to both public administration and non-public 
administration actors for reuse. Building blocks can be available in an open or in a shared format. 
These building blocks allow the Service Providers to offer Integrated SCC Services to the Service 

17 An overview of the applicable legislative framework concerning open data can be found at this page. 

113 

Users in a standardised way. The reusable building blocks lead to a higher efficiency for the Service 
Providers, and to a possible increase in the user-friendliness for the Service Users.  

Data and services can be shared among the different SCC actors in a 
Common SCC Data Platform, also known as a Local Data Platform. This 
Platform, established by Service Providers, facilitates management and 
sharing of city/community data and services. This can be done in line 
with the governance approaches of the Common SCC Council. The difference between the 
Common SCC Council and this Data Platform lies in the fact that the Common SCC Council is 
focused on the overall organisation of the SCC and the services offered in it. In contrast, the Data 
Platform focuses on the exchange of data and services. Both are as such complementary to each 
other.  

Figure 19 - Common SCC Platform 

Figure 19 provides a detailed view of this Common SCC Data Platform. The main beneficiaries of 
this Data Platform are Service Providers, who feed in and use data from the Data Platform to 
develop and offer services. The dotted line in Figure 6 indicates that the data reused from the 
Data Platform can be offered under specific reusability conditions. Together with the Service 
Providers, Service Users play a key role in the Data Platform. Via their overall behaviour within the 
SCC and the use of services offered to them by the Service Providers, the Service Users provide 
data to the Data Platform. The privacy and security of data is of crucial importance and can be 
improved via the Platform. Since the Service Providers tend to provide more data to the Data 
Platform when compared to the data they use, the yellow arrow is wider than the blue arrow. 
Different types of data can be available in the Data Platform – including administrative data, 
scientific data, crowd-sourced and statistical data, data collected via Internet of Things or data 
collected via environmental and urban sensors.  

5. Technology has, together with Security & Privacy, a fundamental role
in the set-up of the Integrated SCC Services. Both aspects have a relevant
impact on the process of creating Integrated SCC Services offered by the
Service  Providers  to  the  Service  Users.  The  Technology  allows  for  the
collection, storing, sharing, updating and preservation of data, and creates 
the possibility to build reusable services. It allows the Service Providers to
create  Integrated  SCC  Services  for  the  Service  Users  and  gives  the
possibility to the Service Users to take an active role in the creation of those services. Examples of 
technology that is relevant in a SCC context are Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Blockchain, Cloud 

114 

computing,  High  performance  computing,  Digital  Twins,  Data  Integration  platforms,  Internet  of 
Things, Mobile applications, etc.  

6. Security & Privacy are primary concerns in the provision of services,
and both the public administration and non-public administration actors
need to ensure that a privacy-by-design and security-by-design approach
is followed. It should also be ensured that services are not vulnerable to
attacks and that the services are compliant with [contractual and] legal
requirements and obligations regarding data protection and privacy. Like
Technology, Security & Privacy impacts not only the City/Community Data
Sources  &  Services,  but  also  the  relation  between  the  Service  Providers  and  the  offering  of 
Integrated SCC Services to the Service Users. 

Recommendation #30 

Use the conceptual model for European Smart City and Community Services to support 
the design of new services or update existing ones and reuse, where possible, existing 
data, service components and digital solutions such as CEF Building Blocks, ISA2 solutions. 

Use case 

Vienna, Austria: 

CEF Digital 

Vienna manages one of the biggest challenges for smart cities, big data, through the 
VeroCity Platform. 

Its data aggregation and analysis capabilities are based on the CEF Context Broker Building 
Block of the European Commission, which can sort through all kinds of data from different 
sources from all over the city. The Context Broker enables the platform to provide visual 
dashboards that cater to the needs of all stakeholders, from inhabitants to city officials 
and software developers, with real time information. 

The platform can ease day-to-day activities, such as urban mobility, environmental 
monitoring, urban infrastructure, energy efficiency etc. The city’s open data and open 
interfaces, in addition to the web services offered, have contributed to unprecedented 
innovation as +200 new applications have been developed by third-party software 
engineers. 

More information: CEF Digital Website 

115 

4.3.7 Conclusion 

Cities and communities play a fundamental role in the life of European Union citizens. Public 
administrations in cities and communities are the closest to the inhabitants, businesses and visitors 
and have a key role in the creation of value for through the delivery of services. The vast growth of 
digital solutions and technological advances of the previous decades have seen local administrations 
begin their transition towards becoming a smart city or community and has demonstrated the 
importance of interoperability.   

Interoperability is a prerequisite for electronic communication and the exchange of information 
between different actors, but as we have seen, it is much broader than technical in nature. Taken in 
the broader sense as presented in the EIF4CC, interoperability is a necessary condition for achieving 
and further developing Smart Cities and Communities in Europe.  

The EIF4SCC provides European Union local administration leaders with a guide to interoperability. It 
includes principles, a common interoperability model, recommendations and practical use cases to 
enable interoperability across domains, cities, regions and borders, leading to improved delivery of 
services to inhabitants, visitors, businesses and city/community administrators. The EIF4SCC is part 
of a wider range of initiatives taken by the European Commission to facilitate the development of 
SCCs as well as the interoperability within and across public administrations, and private actors in the 
smart city and community context. The EIF4SCC must be seen as a complementing effort of the 
European Commission to stimulate and contribute to interoperability from a local, regional, national, 
European and global perspective.  

The EIF4SCC is premised on the fact that that interoperability goes beyond ICT matters. The EIF4SCC 
identifies seven elements of interoperability (five components: cultural, legal, organisational, 
semantic and technical, one cross-cutting layer, all built on the foundation of Interoperability 
Governance). Figure 20 illustrates the components of the EIF4SCC.  

Figure 20 - EIF4SCC Conceptual Model 

116 

These components involve governance factors to ensure coordination of relevant activities across all 
domains of a SCC. The EIF4SCC conceptual model aims to facilitate this governance support by 
providing local administration leaders with a framework and practical use cases that help in the 
planning, development, operation and maintenance of integrated SCC services.  

Besides the EIF4SCC practical guidelines, local administrators are also encouraged to follow and to 
contribute to other initiatives. One of these is the Living-in.EU community, a commitment in which 
decision makers can join forces to boost sustainable digital transformation in cities and communities 
in the EU and together develop sustainable measures. This also includes exchange of knowledge and 
sharing best practices around interoperability solutions in the cities. 

The European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) is also 
developing another initiative to assess the digital maturity at local level. The Local and Regional 
Digital Indicators (LORDI) framework will soon provide evidences of measuring indicators at the local 
and regional level, that could be used to support cities and regions to develop and steer the relevant 
policies, including interoperability related issues.  

The activities conducted by the European Commission to progress interoperability are a continuous 
learning path. Therefore, this is a living document that will need to be updated on the basis of the 
input provided by local administrations, the evolution of ICT and public administrations and the 
development of new insights on interoperability. Furthermore, it has to be underlined that in light of 
the EIF, which targets only public administrations, the EU Member State administrations have 
developed National Interoperability Frameworks. Local administration leaders are encouraged to 
participate in the overarching National Interoperability Framework of their Member State.  

The EIF4SCC as such fits into the multi-level governance context of the EU, where all levels of public 
administration play a key role in achieving interoperability at local, regional, national, European and 
global level. Taking an approach which considers interoperability from the beginning, means being 
better prepared to tackle complex challenges such as climate change, health issues and socio-
economic issues. Therefore, it is important to see interoperability as a facilitator of present and 
future actions or initiatives such as the European Green Deal or the Digital Single Market.  

117 

 
 
 
 
 EIF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SMART CITIES AND COMMUNITIES (D04.01) 

5.1. Introduction 

5.1.1. Objectives and scope 

The objective of this specific Study Report is to present interoperability recommendations that can be 
useful in the context of Smart Cities and Communities. This report is part of Task 4 – Interoperability 
Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities (an overview of all project tasks and activities 
can be found in Annex 5.I – Project Overview).   

The methodological approach of this report can be described as multi-method. It combines document 
analysis with interviews and expert validation. The methodological approach is further detailed in 5.2. 
Methodology. Building upon the relevant recommendations identified in the Literature Review (Task 
2), and the interviews with stakeholders, the existing 2017 European Interoperability Framework (EIF) 
Recommendations were further refined and supplemented with extra recommendations.  

5.1.2. Structure 

The multi-method approach  consisted of five consecutive steps which will be described in the next 
section. Section 2 is followed by the results section where the refined 2017 EIF Recommendations are 
presented as well as the additional recommendations. Afterwards a conclusion follows.  

5.2. Methodology  

For  this  research,  a  multi-method  approach  was  followed,  consisting  of  five  consecutive  steps:  1) 
Literature Review Recommendations, 2) Recommendations retrieved from Interviews with EC Staff 
Members and Stakeholders, 3) Preparation of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities 
4) Review of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities and 5) Preparation of finalised 
overview of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities. The research approach can be 
labelled  as  multi-method  as  it  combines  different  methodological  approaches  that  supported  the 
achievement of the research objective (see 5.1. Introduction). The five steps mentioned above, will be 
described.  

5.2.1. Literature Review Recommendations  

The  first  activity  that  took  place  in  light  of  this  project,  was  defining  the  different  concepts  that 
integrate the framework in Task 2. This was described in D02.01 Study: Smart Cities and Communities 
Interoperability  Framework:  Concept,  Definition(s)  and  Categories.  This  activity  started  with  a 
literature review. Both academic and grey literature were included in this literature review process. 
The complete methodology of this literature review is already described in D02.01. In total more than 
170 documents were analysed. During this review process, relevant recommendations were filtered 
from  the  documents.  On  the  basis  of  this  approach,  a  detailed  list  of  recommendations  could  be 
identified.  As  there  was  a  substantial  overlap  between  the  different  recommendations  that  were 
identified via the literature review, a cleaning and selection process was organised, leading to a filtered 
list of Literature Review Recommendations. This list of recommendations can be found in Annex 5.II – 
Recommendations retrieved from the Literature Review. 

5.2.2. Recommendations retrieved from Interviews with EC Staff Members and Stakeholders  

A  second  research  activity  consisted  of  interviewing  relevant  European  Commission  (EC)  staff 
members as well as smart cities/communities and interoperability experts. In order to develop the 
European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC), it was considered 
relevant  to  not  only  focus  on  what  the  literature  says,  but  also  to  include  experts  in  the  research 
process. In total 31 respondents were interviewed. During those interviews, respondents were asked 

118 

 
 
 
to provide their view on interoperability in a Smart City and Community context. This led to a number 
of relevant recommendations. Again, and in line with 2.1 Literature Review Recommendations, it was 
decided  to  organise  a  cleaning  and  selection  process:  Whenever  there  was  overlap  between  the 
different  recommendations,  the  researchers  filtered  out  this  overlap.  The  list  of  recommendations 
that  was  derived  on  the  basis  of  the  interviews  with  EC  staff  members  and  stakeholders  can  be 
consulted in Annex 5.III – Recommendations retrieved from the Interviews with EC Staff Members and 
Stakeholders. 

5.2.3. Preparation of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities  

The  next  step  of  the  research  methodology  consisted  of  two  sub-steps.  In  a  first  phase  the 
recommendations of the 2017 EIF were all analysed taking into account the conceptual definitions and 
categories  defined  in  D02.01  Study:  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  Interoperability  Framework: 
Concept, Definition(s) and Categories. An overview of the original 2017 EIF Recommendations can be 
found in Annex 5.IV – Original 2017 EIF Recommendations. The information gathered via the D02.01 
Study allowed the researchers to define what aspects of the recommendations had to be modified to 
make the recommendations fit into the context of Smart Cities and Communities. On the basis of this 
knowledge, the 2017 EIF Recommendations were all further refined and developed. The second phase 
consisted  then  of  bringing  the  refined  2017  EIF  Recommendations  together  with  the 
recommendations that are based on Research Step 5.2.1. Literature Review Recommendations and 
5.2.2. Recommendations retrieved from Interviews with EC Staff Members and Stakeholders. This step 
led to a list of potentially relevant draft recommendations for the Smart Cities and Communities.  

5.2.4. Review of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities 

list  of  draft  recommendations  defined 

The 
in  Research  Step  5.2.3.  Preparation  of  EIF 
Recommendations  for  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  went  through  an  internal  review  process, 
whereby the research team members that were not directly involved in the review process provided 
their feedback and comments to the list of draft recommendations. On the basis of their feedback and 
comments, the list of draft recommendations was presented to the Commission Project Officers for 
validation. The updated list of recommendations was validated. Given that the EIF4SCC was, at the 
time of developing this updated list of recommendation, already strongly advanced, it was possible to 
connect the different recommendations to the Principles and Elements of the EIF4SCC.  

5.2.5. Preparation  of  finalised  overview  of  EIF  Recommendations  for  Smart  Cities  and 
Communities 

The final Research Step consisted of preparing this Study Report as D04.01 EIF Recommendations for 
Smart Cities and Communities. The results of this research process are presented in the next section 
of this Study Report, 5.3. Results. Previous versions of this Report were presented in Excel format, as 
v0.01 and v0.02.  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3. Results  

On the basis of the above described methodological multi-method approach, a list of relevant EIF 
Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities was developed. In order to increase the 
readability of the research results, i.e. the recommendations, it was decided to present the 
recommendations in a table format. The table includes all the recommendations, structured on the 
basis of the in the EIF4SCC defined principles and elements.  

The following are the five principles included in the EIF4SCC:  

•  The city as a participatory-driven and open innovation ecosystem 

•  A human-driven approach 

•  A city needs-led approach at EU level 

•  Ethical and socially responsible access, use, sharing and management of data 

•  Technologies as key enablers, not as the objective 

The following are the seven elements included in the EIF4SCC:  

• 

• 

Interoperability Governance 

Integrated Service Governance  

•  Cultural Interoperability  

• 

Legal Interoperability  

•  Organisational Interoperability  

•  Semantic Interoperability  

•  Technical Interoperability  

Next to each of the recommendations, the original source is included. It has to be noted that when 
reference is made to “EIF (2017)” as a source, this refers to the original recommendation of the 2017 
EIF. This original recommendation has been refined to the context of Smart Cities and Communities 
and it is this recommendation that is included in the table below.  

In total 74 recommendations were compiled on the basis of the original 2017 EIF Recommendations, 
the literature review and the interviews with the EC Staff Members and Stakeholders. Most of the 
recommendations are related to Integrated Service Governance, least to the Principle “A city needs-
led approach at EU level” and the Technical Interoperability element.  

Recommendation 

Principle “The city as a participatory-driven and open innovation ecosystem” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Ensure a level playing field for open source software and demonstrate active and 
fair consideration of using open source software, taking into account the total cost 
of ownership of the solution. 
Develop an open data approach and portal including other actors of your local 
ecosystem.  
Reuse and share solutions, and cooperate in the development of joint solutions 
when implementing local, regional, national and European public services. 
Reuse and share information and data when implementing local (public) services, 
unless certain privacy or confidentiality restrictions apply. 

Source 

EIF (2017) - 3 

EIF (2017) - 2 

EIF (2017) - 6 

EIF (2017) - 7 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

6 

Reuse and share information and data when implementing local (public) services, 
unless certain privacy or confidentiality restrictions apply. 
Put in place mechanisms to involve users in the analysis, design, assessment and 
further development of local (public) services. 

Principle “A human-driven approach” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Do not impose any technological solutions on inhabitants, businesses, visitors and 
city/community administrators that are technology-specific or disproportionate to 
their real needs. 
Use multiple channels to provide local (public) service, to ensure that users can 
select the channel that best suits their needs. 
Provide a single point of contact to decrease public administration complexity and 
facilitate users’ access to local, regional, national and European public services. 
Integrate a no-wrong-door policy (i.e. physical and digital channels co-exist) in the 
offering of local (public) services.  
As far as possible under the legislation in force, ask users of local (public) services 
once-only and relevant-only information. 
Ensure that all local public services are accessible to all inhabitants and visitors, 
including persons with disabilities, the elderly and other disadvantaged groups. For 
digital public services, public administrations should comply with e-accessibility 
specifications at regional, national, European or international level. 
Use information systems and technical architectures that allow for multilingualism 
when establishing a local (public) service. Decide on the level of multilingualism 
support based on the needs of the expected users and ensure alignment with 
regional and national legislative frameworks. 
Simplify processes and use digital channels whenever appropriate for the delivery of 
local (public) services, to respond promptly and with high quality to users’ requests 
and reduce the administrative burden on inhabitants, businesses, visitors and 
city/community administrators. 
Create a long-term strategy that goes beyond the current political cycle, agreed 
upon with the stakeholders, to ensure that short term actions during the political 
cycle contribute to long-term aims, and help cities/communities to fulfil their 
obligations. 

Principle “A city needs-led approach at EU level” 

Ensure that the legislative framework at local level is updated when the regional, 
national or European public administrations create possibilities for an intensified 
digitalisation of public services, to ensure that barriers for service delivery are 
removed.  
Ensure an alignment of the long-term preservation policy for information with 
regional, national and European legislative frameworks.  

1 

2 

1 

Principle “Ethical and socially responsible access, use, sharing and management of data” 
Define a common security and privacy framework and establish processes for 
(public) services to ensure secure and trustworthy data exchange between public 
administrations and in interactions with citizens and businesses 
Formulate a long-term preservation policy for information related to local, regional, 
national and European (public) services and especially for information that is 
exchanged across borders. 
Be transparent on Business-2-Government data collaboration, including on the data 
used and the impact of the partnership.  

3 

2 

Principle “Technologies as key enablers, not as the objective” 

Ensure that the local interoperability framework and interoperability strategy is 
aligned with the regional and national interoperability framework(s) and the 
EIF4SCC. If needed, tailor and extend the local interoperability framework and 
interoperability strategy to address the specific local context and needs, via domain 
specific interoperability frameworks. 
Give preference to open specifications, taking due account of the coverage of 
functional needs, maturity and market support and innovation. 

1 

2 

121 

EIF (2017) - 7 

EIF (2017) - 12 

EIF (2017) - 8 

EIF (2017) - 10 

EIF (2017) - 11 

EIF (2017) - 11 

EIF (2017) - 13 

EIF (2017) - 14 

EIF (2017) - 16 

EIF (2017) - 17 

Literature 
Review 

EIF (2017) - 13 

EIF (2017) - 18 

EIF (2017) - 15 

EIF (2017) - 18 

Literature 
Review 

EIF (2017) - 1 

EIF (2017) - 4 

 
 
3 

4 

Ensure data portability, namely that data is easily transferable between systems 
and applications supporting the implementation and evolution of local, regional, 
national and European (public) services without unjustified restrictions, if legally 
possible. 
Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of different interoperability solutions and 
technological options considering user needs, proportionality and balance between 
costs and benefits. 

Element “Interoperability Governance” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Ensure holistic governance of interoperability activities across domains, 
cities/communities, regions and borders. 
Put in place processes to select relevant standards and specifications, evaluate 
them, monitor their implementation, check compliance and test their 
interoperability. 
Use a structured, transparent, objective and common approach to assessing and 
selecting standards and specifications. Take into account relevant regional, national 
and EU recommendations and seek to make the approach consistent across 
domains, cities/communities, regions and borders 
Consult relevant catalogues of standards, specifications and guidelines at regional, 
national and EU level, in accordance with the regional and national interoperability 
framework(s), the EIF4SCC and relevant domain specific interoperability framework, 
when procuring and developing ICT solutions. 
Actively participate in standardisation work relevant to the local needs to ensure 
that the local requirements are met. 
Ensure that the necessary and required financial means are foreseen to support the 
interoperability activities of the Smart City/Community.   
Create a working group/forum that operates as a network on the topic of Smart 
Cities/Communities and interoperability. 
Define a common strategy, shared by all individual stakeholders in a Smart 
City/Community, to create the conditions that favour and improve its adoption. 
Monitor and evaluate progress according to Quality Management Systems 
approaches, ensuring that the cities’ / communities' end goals are eventually met. 
If possible and relevant, appoint a chief digital officer, and install a supporting board 
of Smart City / Community experts. 

Element “Integrated Service Governance” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Ensure interoperability and coordination over time when operating and delivering 
integrated (public) services by putting in place the necessary governance structure. 
Establish interoperability agreements in all layers, complemented by operational 
agreements and change management procedures. 
Use the conceptual model for European Smart City and Community Services to 
design new services or reengineer existing ones and reuse, whenever possible, 
existing data and service components. 
Decide on a common scheme for interconnecting loosely coupled service 
components and put in place and maintain the necessary infrastructure for 
establishing and maintaining local (public) services. 
Develop a shared infrastructure of reusable data and services that can be (re)used 
by Smart City/Community actors, while respecting the necessary legal conditions.  
Make authoritative sources of information available to others while implementing 
access and control mechanisms to ensure security and privacy in accordance with 
the relevant legislation. 
Make as much as possible use of authoritative sources of information made 
available by regional and national administrations.  
Establish, as a local public administration, authoritative sources of information for 
the data falling under your responsibility.   
Develop interfaces for base registries and authoritative sources of information, 
publish the semantic and technical means and documentation needed for others to 
connect and reuse available information. 

EIF (2017) - 9 

EIF (2017) - 19 

EIF (2017) - 20 

EIF (2017) - 21 

EIF (2017) - 22 

EIF (2017) - 23 

EIF (2017) - 24 

Interviews 

Interviews 

Literature 
Review 
Literature 
Review 
Literature 
Review 

EIF (2017) - 25 

EIF (2017) - 26 

EIF (2017) - 34 

EIF (2017) - 35 

EIF (2017) - 36 

EIF (2017) - 37 

EIF (2017) - 37 

EIF (2017) - 37 

EIF (2017) - 38 

122 

 
 
10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Match each base registry with appropriate metadata including the description of its 
content, service assurance and responsibilities, the type of master data it keeps, 
conditions of access and the relevant licences, terminology, a glossary, and 
information about any master data it uses from other base registries. 
Create and follow data quality assurance plans for base registries and related 
master data. 
Establish procedures and processes to integrate the opening of data in the local 
public administration's common business processes, working routines, and in the 
development of new information systems. 
Publish open data in machine-readable, non-proprietary formats. Ensure that open 
data is accompanied by high quality, machine-readable metadata in non-proprietary 
formats, including a description of their content, the way data is collected and its 
level of quality and the licence terms under which it is made available. The use of 
common vocabularies for expressing metadata is recommended. 
Communicate clearly the right to access and reuse open data. The legal regimes for 
facilitating access and reuse, such as licences, should be standardised as much as 
possible. 
Put in place catalogues of (public) services, (public) data, and (public) 
interoperability solutions and use common models for describing them. 
Where useful and feasible to do so, use external information sources and services 
while developing local (public) services. 
Consider the specific security and privacy requirements and identify measures for 
the provision of each (public) service according to risk management plans. 
Use trust services according to the Regulation on eID and Trust Services as 
mechanisms that ensure secure and protected data exchange in public services. 
Evaluate the extent to which interoperability has been considered in the existing 
and future services, and reflect on possibility to increasy the interoperability. 
Collaborate and communicate with inhabitants, business, visitors and 
city/community administrators in your city/community, so that different needs, 
challenges and requirements can be connected to each other from the start of a 
new project.  

EIF (2017) - 39 

EIF (2017) - 40 

EIF (2017) - 41 

EIF (2017) - 42 

EIF (2017) - 43 

EIF (2017) - 44 

EIF (2017) - 45 

EIF (2017) - 46 

EIF (2017) - 47 

Interviews 

Interviews 

21  Work together with businesses, while avoiding vendor lock in.  

22 

Do not collect all available data resources within a central data repository, but 
ensure that the data remains with the data owners.  

Element “Cultural Interoperability” 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Create a knowledge transfer strategy to improve the skills of the staff in your local 
administration with the required digital and interoperability competences.  
When working together with others, discuss and align working practices at the 
beginning of the project.  
Identify common values and interests when collaborating with a new partner.  
Organise events that allow local administration to share and present their 
interoperability experiences. 
Ensure wide, early and in-depth stakeholder engagement to achieve agreement on 
the overall project aim and the proposed measures, and to tie in other benefits 
important to the users and owners of the project. 

Interviews 
Literature 
Review 

Interviews 

Interviews 

Interviews 
Interviews 

Literature 
Review 

Element “Legal Interoperability” 

1 

2 

Ensure that contractual agreements, regulatory frameworks and legislation are 
screened by means of ‘interoperability checks’, to identify any barriers to 
interoperability. 
When drafting contractual agreements, regulatory frameworks and legislation to 
establish a local (public) service, seek to make it consistent with other relevant 
contractual agreements, regulatory frameworks and legislation, perform a ‘digital 
check’ and consider data protection requirements. 
Develop machine readable and standardised licenses allowing machines to read 
data without human intervention.  
Element “Organisational interoperability” 

3 

EIF (2017) - 27 

EIF (2017) - 27 

Interviews 

123 

 
 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Document your business processes using commonly accepted modelling techniques 
and agree on how these processes should be aligned to deliver a local (public) 
service. 
Clarify and formalise your organisational relationships for establishing and 
operating local (public) services. 
Create Common Smart City/Community (Data) Platforms in which different actors 
can offer their data, products and services, mentioning the conditions or purchase 
services for the other participants. 
Create a data broker to receive and forward data, to those allowed to receive the 
data, with a well-developed reporting and logging module.  
Set-up vehicles for collaboration in Smart City/Community projects to overcome 
siloes within government sectors and businesses and to enable public-private 
collaboration. 

Element “Semantic interoperability” 

1 

2 

3 

Perceive public sector data and information as a public asset that should be 
appropriately generated, collected, managed, shared, protected and preserved. 
Put in place an information management strategy at the highest possible level to 
avoid fragmentation and duplication. Management of metadata, master data and 
reference data should be prioritised. 
Support the establishment of domain-specific communities that aim to create open 
information specifications and encourage relevant communities to share their 
results on local, regional, national and European platforms. 

Element “Technical interoperability” 

EIF (2017) - 28 

EIF (2017) - 29 

Literature 
Review 

Literature 
Review 
Literature 
Review 

EIF (2017) - 30 

EIF (2017) - 31 

EIF (2017) - 32 

1 

2 

Use open specifications, where available, to ensure technical interoperability when 
establishing local (public) services. 
Do not only focus on standardisation, but focus on finding an agreement on the use 
of data and/or service schemas for the interacting devices.  

EIF (2017) - 33 

Literature 
Review 

124 

 
 
 
 
5.4. Conclusion  

is  a  deliverable  of  ISA²  Action  2016.33:  European  Interoperability  Framework 
This  report 
Implementation:  EIF  and  Smart  Cities,  towards  a  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  Interoperability 
Framework. The objective of this Study Report was to define interoperability recommendations that 
can  be  useful  in  the  context  of  Smart  Cities  and  Communities.  This  report  is  part  of  Task  4  – 
Interoperability Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities (an overview of all project tasks 
and activities can be found in Annex 5.I – Project Overview). From a methodological point of view, a 
multi-method  approach  was  followed,  combining  a  document  analysis  with  interviews  and  expert 
validation. In total five different methodological steps were followed:  

1.  Literature Review Recommendations 

2.  Recommendations retrieved from Interviews with EC Staff Members and Stakeholders  

3.  Preparation of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities 

4.  Review of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities 

5.  Preparation of finalised overview of EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities 

On the basis of this methodological approach, a list of relevant EIF Recommendations for Smart Cities 
and Communities was developed.  In total 74 recommendation were developed, structured around 
the EIF4SCC Principles and Elements. 

Those recommendations aim to further inspire local administration policy makers as well as staff 
members of higher public administrations – such as EC Staff Members or national civil servants – 
when developing interoperability activities that target local administrations, and in particular Smart 
Cities and Communities and those willing to become one.   

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 NATIONAL SUPPORT FOR INTEROPERABILITY CITIES AND COMMUNITIES (D04.02) 

6.1. Introduction 

6.1.1. Context  

is  a  deliverable  of  ISA²  Action  2016.33:  European  Interoperability  Framework 
This  report 
Implementation:  EIF  and  Smart  Cities,  towards  a  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  Interoperability 
Framework. This action is part of the ISA² programme, which run from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 
2020. The logic behind this action is that interoperability is not only highly relevant for higher public 
administrations, such as European, national and regional public administrations, but equally important 
for local administration. Indeed, the technological changes and challenges do impact all levels of public 
administration. This leads to a digital transformation, and interoperability requirements. Being a key 
challenge  the  need  for  increased  interoperability  at  the  local  level,  this  involves  the  interactions 
between the local level on the one hand and the higher levels of public administration and the private 
sector  on  the  other  hand.  Also,  the  growing  amount  of  data  available  at  the  local  level,  which  is 
collected among others via the Internet of Things (IoT), leads not only to increased possibilities for 
both policy making and service delivery, but also creates interoperability requirements. This is, among 
others,  recognised  in  the  recent  European  Commission  Communication  “Shaping  Europe’s  Digital 
Future” (European Commission 2020). It can be argued that interoperability is of high importance to 
ensure user-satisfaction with the delivered public services.  

In the same vein, the ISA² Action 2016.33 objectives can be summarized as follows:  

•  Develop an Interoperability Framework for local administrations and in particular smart and 
sustainable cities and communities as well as those cities and communities aiming to become 
a Smart City / Community. 

• 

• 

Identify  a  set  of  recommendations  for  local  administrations,  and  in  particular  smart  and 
sustainable cities and communities. 

Increase the awareness of interoperability, through identified solutions (such as ISA² Joinup 
platform,  the  Smart  Cities  Marketplace,  the  Join,  Boost,  Sustain  Declaration  and  related 
activities). 

The  aforementioned  objectives  fit  within  the  broader  and  overall  ambition  to  strive  for  a  strong, 
interoperable, EU ecosystem for smart cities and communities of the future, with open standards and 
based urban digital platforms. Interoperability functions thereby as an enabler for the development 
of services across domains, cities, regions and borders. The services, which can be provided by the 
public sector, the private sector or a combination of both, are thereby embedded in the smart cities 
and communities ecosystem. 

This report is part of Task 4 – Interoperability Recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities (an 
overview of all project tasks and activities can be found in Annex 6.I).   

6.1.2. Objectives and scope 

The objective of this specific Study Report is to provide a deeper analysis of national and regional levels 
support to interoperability actions at the local level across Member States (MS). 

The scope is to analyse interoperability-related policy documents and the relation of the national and 
regional levels with the local level of five MS representatives of different realities across the EU.  

The methodological approach of this report is described as a multi-method combining different steps 
to analyse interoperability at national and regional levels and its impact and influence at local level. 
The methodological approach is further detailed in 6.2. Methodology.  

126 

 
 
6.1.3. Structure 

The multi-method approach consisted of four consecutive steps which will be described in the next 
section, followed by the results section, in which the outcomes of the desk research and interviews 
are presented, followed by a conclusion section.  At the end of the report are the bibliography and the 
annexes.  

127 

 
 
 
6.2. Methodology 

A  multi-method  approach  was  followed,  consisting  of  four  consecutive  steps:  1)  Member  State 
Selection, 2)  Documentation  Analysis,  3)  Interviews  with  Member  State  Representatives,  and  4) 
Overview of supporting instruments for interoperability. 

6.2.1. Member State Selection 

This  step  was  focused  on  the  Member  State  (MS)  selection,  ensuring  that  the  MS  sample  covered 
different  realities  across  the  EU.  As  illustrated  in  figure  21  -  MS  Selection  Process,  a  set  of 
scenarios  taking different levels of Penetration18 and Digitisation19, presented on the eGovernment 
Benchmark  201820,  were  considered  as  a  baseline  to  support  this  selection:  Fruitful contains  high 
levels  of  both  Digitisation  and  Penetration,  meaning  that  a    government  achieves  innovative 
digital  services  with  many  users.  Unexploited  contains  lower  levels  of  Digitisation  combined 
with  higher  levels  of  Penetration, meaning that a government achieves its digital transformation 
process, but it has already a  large  number  of  citizens  and  businesses  using  eGovernment  services. 
Expandable  contains  higher  levels  of  Digitisation  and  lower  levels  of  Penetration,  which  states 
that  a  government  innovates  its  public  services effectively.  Expanding  the  number  of  online  users 
would contribute to unfolding more potential  benefits.  Non-Consolidated  -  contains  lower  levels 
of  Digitisation  and  lower  levels  of  Penetration,  meaning  that  the  government  does  not  use  ICT 
opportunities and has limited number of users of online public service. 

Since the target was to have deeper analysis in five MS, it was defined that each of the scenarios should 
have at least one MS, giving priority to MS that were already part of the co-creation group21. As the 
non-consolidated scenario had the most MS (11), it was decided that this group should be composed 
of two MS.  

It the end, the following five MS were selected: Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia, 
and the contacts points to be involved in the interviews were identified: 

• Greece – Hellenic Ministry of Digital Governance
•

Ireland  –  Department  of  Housing,  Local  Government  and  Heritage  and  Local  Government
Management Agency

• Netherlands – Association of Netherlands Municipalities VNG
•

Portugal – Administrative Modernization Agency (Ministery of State Modernisation and Public
Administration)
Slovenia – Ministry of Public Administration

•

18 - Extent to which use of the online channel is widespread among users of government services. 
19 - Proxy for the Digitisation level of the back and front office. 
20 - eGovernment Benchmark 2018 – Securing eGovernment for all. See: 

https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2018-
47/egovernment_benchmark_2018_background_report_F21FA84B-0254-F4DB-
7B2FC4567D4AA925_55487.pdf  

21 - City of Amsterdam (Netherlands), City of Athens (Greece), City of Lisbon (Portugal), City of Madrid (Spain),City 
of Valencia (Spain), Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (Finland), Ministry of Finance (Estonia) 
128 

Figure 21 - MS Selection Process 

6.2.2. Documentation Analysis 

This  activity  started  with  desk  research,  based  on  existing  policy  documentation  targeted  to 
interoperability in each Member State, namely the National Interoperability Framework Observatory 
(NIFO)  Factsheets  available  on  the  joinup  page22  for  each  MS,  and  the  2018  Interoperability 
governance models23. This research allowed to understand the interoperability reality in each of the 
five MS selected and supported the definition of a set of questions to be included in the interviews to 
explore and have a better knowledge of what regards interoperability at national level. The interview 
guidelines can be found in Annex 6.II – Interview Questions. 

6.2.3. Interviews with Member State Representatives 

As a third step, the MS representatives were interviewed. The aim was: 

•

•

•

To gather insights from national and regional strategies, legislation and regulations to support
the implementation of interoperability at local level;

To have a better understanding of the governance model to support interoperability between
the national and local level;

To share best practices and use cases that can be replicated in other the Member States.

The one-hour interview with the five MS representatives was conducted through MS Teams or Skype. 
During those interviews, respondents  were asked  to provide their views on  three  topics  related  to 
interoperability: i) Vision & Strategy, ii) Main Challenges and Constraints and, iii) Best Practices and 
Use Cases. The outcomes of each interview can be read in Annex 6.III – Outcomes of the interviews 
with Member State Representatives. 

6.2.4. Preparation of finalised overview of supporting instruments for interoperability 

The final step consisted of preparing this Study Report as D04.02 Document analysis on supporting 
instruments for interoperability. The results of this research process are presented in the next section 
of this Study Report, 6.3. Results. 

22 - NIFO – National Interoperability Framework Observatory. See: 
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/nifo/nifo-factsheets 

23 - D03.01 Interoperability governance models. See: 

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2018-04/SC439_D03.01 Interoperability 
governance models v3.00.pdf  

129 

6.3. Results  

Based on the above-described methodology, this section shows an overview of how the national and 
regional levels can support the uptake of interoperability actions at the local level across MS. 
Similarly to the interviews, this section is split into three parts: i) Vision & Strategy; ii) Main 
challenges and constraints and; iii) Best practices and use cases. 

6.3.1. Vision & Strategy 

Concerning  the  vision  of  interoperability,  all  the  MS  interviewed  are  willing  to  turn  their  public 
authorities  more  interoperable  at  the  national,  regional,  and  local  levels.  Interoperability  is  a  key 
priority in their strategic agenda and is being included in the National Information and Communication 
Technologies (ICT) Strategy, Data Strategy and/ or Data Sharing Acts. This willingness comes from the 
government’s  need  to  become  more  digital,  and  therefore  is  it  crucial  to  have  in  place  proper 
guidelines, frameworks, and capacity skills to support interoperability at all levels. 

Taking  Portugal  as  an  example:  since  2015,  interoperability  has  been  a  priority  of  the  Portuguese 
government. Interoperability is highlighted in the ICT Strategy 202024, which scope was defined at the 
end of 2020.  The ICT Strategy 2020 is structured in three main axles: i) integration and interoperability; 
ii) innovation and competitiveness and; iii) resource sharing and investment in digital competencies. 
To  what  concerns  interoperability,  the  strategy  provides  an  electronic  service  catalogue,  extends 
interoperability  to  document  management  solutions  and  promotes  the  mass  use  of  the 
interoperability  platform  (iAP)  for  administrative  simplification  and  modernization  initiatives. 
At  the moment  the Administrative  Modernization Agency (AMA),  is in  charge  of interoperability in 
Portugal  and  is  working  on  a  new  draft  proposal  to  present  to  the  government  regarding  the 
interoperability axle of the document. 

In Ireland, interoperability is also a key priority and is being addressed on the National Public Service 
Data Strategy25. The data strategy itself states interoperability as a key element to establish a data 
ecosystem, as a way to improve the governance, the management, and the usage of data in a secure, 
safe, efficient and transparent way to deliver better services and better digital services to citizens.  

However,  from  all  the  five  MS  interviewed,  the  interoperability  strategy  is  only  addressed  at  the 
national level, meaning there is no specific official strategy for the local level to tackle interoperability. 
Interoperability is included in the national strategy and it takes into consideration the needs at local 
level.    For  example,  in  the  Netherlands,  the  national-level  strategy  takes  into  consideration  the 
municipalities’ need’s by involving them in the decision-making process at national level that impacts 
at local level. 

Key Takeaways 

Interoperability is becoming a priority for MS. However, the guidelines of interoperability for each MS used 
to be very broad and do not have a specific action plan for local administrations.  

Moreover, this topic has recently gained more importance. The vision outlined is focused at national wide and 
only a few cases target the local level. 

24 - Portugal - ICT Strategy 2020. See: 

https://tic.gov.pt/documents/37177/109352/CTIC_TIC2020_Estrategia_TIC_EN.pdf/a50c391d-fb12-b261-
fe3a-de8ea92f96c2  

25 - National Public Service Data Strategy. See: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/386c8-public-service-data-

strategy-2019-2023/  

130 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.3.2. Main challenges and constraints 

Regarding the main challenges and constraints, most MS have one bottleneck in common: legislation. 

In  Portugal,  the  use  of  the  national  interoperability  platform  (iAP)  is  not  mandatory  for  local 
authorities. However, if local authorities implement their own platforms, the development of their 
requirements and technical specifications may not ensure communication with others nor with iAP. 
Moreover, the current legislation does not allow a unique database to collect citizen's information into 
one single platform. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure interoperable services to facilitate and support 
citizen's exchange of information when a specific service from the Public Administration is needed. 

In Ireland, one of the main challenges relates to compliance with the GDPR regulation. At the moment 
there are several limitations when collecting data and tracking access to services. 

However, in Slovenia, national legislation was approved recently and has included new features. In 
November 2020, a new central service SI-CeV was introduced to cover the e-delivery of the official 
documents to citizens and between public institutions at national level. Up to now, more than 100 
public  institutions  can  deliver  electronic  documents  according  to  the  Administrative  procedure 
legislation.  Citizens  are  also  required  to  activate  the  secure  mailbox  options  to  receive  the  official 
document  electronically  and  soon  will  be  extended  to  the  local  level,  municipalities,  and  private 
providers.  
Slovenia is preparing a new law in the area of electronic identification and trust services, which will 
align national legislation with the new Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on electronic identification and 
trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (eIDAS Regulation). It is planned that 
Slovenian citizens will be able to use their new identity cards as electronic identification by 2022. This 
will have a positive impact on interoperability at local and national level and will support the use of 
digital services at national and local levels.  

Moreover, from discussions with other city experts around interoperability challenges, other topics 
focus  on  procurement  of  the  solutions,  the  lack  of  skills  and  knowledge  on  the  upper  levels  of 
administration. 

Furthermore,  a  study26  from  2018  reveals  that  interoperability  challenges  could  be  tackled  in  the 
development and use of the Single Digital Gateway (SDG) IT tools. The study highlights three concrete 
challenges: a) setting up a sound and efficient organisational model, b) the need for a common data 
model c) guarantee data exchange. 

Key Takeaways 

From  the  interviews  conducted,  all  five  MS  faced  a  common  challenge:  legal  frameworks,  policies  and 
strategies barriers, and how to deal with the differences among them. There is a degree of uncertainty on 
how data should be gathered and exchanged among the different public administrations both at national and 
local  levels.  Nevertheless,  this  uncertainty  has  opened  some  space  for  countries  to  tailor  their  existing 
legislation to the challenges. 

Moreover, legislation could difficult the implementation of interoperable services/ solutions. Policy makers 
are not always aware of the technical aspects during proposal legislation process. Therefore, it is crucial to 
involve all parties in the decision making policies. 

26 Study on functional, technical and semantic interoperability requirements for the single digital gateway 

(SDG) implementation. DLV04.01- List of cases where interoperability challenges may occur. See: 
https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/sites/default/files/dlv04.01-
_list_of_cases_where_interoperability_challenges_may_occur.pdf  

131 

 
 
 
                                                            
6.3.3. Best practices and use cases 

MS have highlighted concrete best practices and use cases, tools or programmes, funding instruments, 
frameworks, and guidelines that could cover and support interoperability initiatives. 

In the Netherlands, there is a big investment fund for municipalities: a 45 million euro per year fund 
managed by the VNG (Association of Netherlands Municipalities) mainly to support building blocks for 
municipalities.  Moreover,  the  procurement  process  in  the  country  is  centralised:    the  cost  of 
procurement for a service or solution is optimised, since the provider is responsible for the delivery to 
all the 352 municipalities in the Netherlands. 

In Slovenia, the Slovenian National Interoperability Framework (NIO) represents a central point for the 
coordination of interoperability e-services, digital development and connectivity to the EU JoinUp platform. 
NIO  consists  of  different  guidelines,  standards,  information,  and  building  blocks  that  supports  the 
improvement  of  business  processes  and  enables  better  compatibility  and  connectivity  at  national  and 
international levels. Many useful assets are published and explained on NIO. Institutions can use them 
when  designing  their  business  processes  and  related  information  systems.  In  2011,  the  NIO's  Editorial 
Board  was  established  and  composed  by  a  group  of  IT  experts  from  different  fields  involved  in  the 
publication and monitoring of interoperability products and services of the NIO portal.  

Regarding the use cases, some examples to highlight: 

Ireland  

Creation of a single unique identifier, a postcode called EIRCODE. Launched in July 2015, EIRCODE enables 
individuals and organisations to find any address in the country. 

In Ireland, 35% of the addresses are shared with at least one other property, which makes it difficult for those 
delivering goods and services to pinpoint an exact location. EIRCODE was designed to tackle this issue since 
EIRCODE is targeted at each single residential or business address. This identifier represents one of the critical 
steps forward that Ireland started to take in the last few years.  

Besides the postcode identifier, Ireland has also been working on two other identifiers the PPSN - Personal 
Public Services Number for individuals, which is a unique reference number that is needed for all dealings 
with public service agencies and a unique business identifier.  

Slovenia 

The National Open Data Portal (OPSI) was launched in December 2016. The OPSI Portal is a national website 
that  publishes  open  data  for  the  entire  public  sector  with  a  dual  function.  First,  it  represents  the  central 
catalogue of records and databases in the country as an inventory of metadata from all records and databases 
managed by national authorities, municipalities, and other public sector bodies. Second, OPSI publishes open 
data and machine-readable formats. The portal provides free and easy access in the ‘open data’ form for any 
type  (non-profit  or  profit)  request.  The  goal  was  to  establish  the  so-called  “Open  Data  Ecosystem”,  to 
encourage cooperation between all stakeholders concerned by opening and/or re-use of data. 

Portugal 

The Social Energy Tariff (TSE) with DGEG (Directorate-General for Energy and Geology) – The social energy 
tariff was created to reduce the energy costs of household consumers, to ensure the purpose of universal 
access to quality services at affordable prices.   

To apply for the Social Energy Tariff, citizens are not required to intervene in the process: During the signature 
of the electricity and gas contracts, iAP requests information from the Tax and Social Security Authority, to 
confirm that the customer can benefit from more affordable prices according to the citizen's situation (e.g. 
lower income or special conditions). By using iAP, the number of families covered by the TSE has increased 
from around 100.000 to 800.000 families. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
Key Takeaways 

Even though interoperability is a relatively new topic on the Government’s agenda, across Europe, the MS 
have accomplished significant work in this domain. 

Although there is still a lot of work to be conducted, some MS are already sharing use cases and best practices 
with other MS to support them becoming more interoperable.  

Moreover, there is a clear need to invest in assessment tools to evaluate the progress made so far by the 
different MS. 

6.4. Conclusion  

is  a  deliverable  of  ISA²  Action  2016.33:  European  Interoperability  Framework 
This  report 
Implementation:  EIF  and  Smart  Cities,  towards  a  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  Interoperability 
Framework. The main objective of this Study Report was to provide a thorough analysis of Government 
and Regional level support to interoperability at a Local Administration level across Member States 
and illustrate with examples of best practices and use cases. From a methodological point of view, a 
multi-method  approach  was  followed,  combining  a  document  analysis  with  interviews  and  expert 
validation. 

Based on the methodological approach, an overview description is given about how the national level 
supports the implementation of interoperable solutions at the local level. The aim is to inspire other 
MS to learn from these lessons learned. 

The  main  takeaways that  are coming from the interviews show that interoperability is becoming  a 
priority  for  many  public  administrations  across  MS.  However,  interoperability  still  needs  to  be 
improved  at  all  levels:  national,  regional  and  local  level.    At  national  level,  the  interoperability 
agreements are fairly consistent with European Interoperability Framework but there is still a way to 
improve the coordination with some of the principles, conceptual models, and interoperability levels. 
Since the vision and/or strategy defined is usually part of a wider national strategy such as the ICT 
Strategy  Act,  Data  Sharing  Act,  etc.,  the  local  level  is  not  being  fully  target  meaning  that  local 
administrators do not have clear guidelines to implement. 

Regarding  the  interoperability  challenges  faced,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  MS  have  a  common 
barrier: legal frameworks, policies and strategies bottlenecks. The degree of uncertainty about data 
collection  and  sharing  and  the  difficulties  during  the  implementation  phase  created  a  unique 
opportunity for organisations to be creative and tailor made the existing legislation and opportunities 
to overcome those challenges. 

Even though interoperability is a relatively new topic on the Government’s agenda, across European 
countries, the MS have accomplished significant work in this domain, including the sharing of use cases 
and best practices available that can inspire other European cities/communities when dealing with 
interoperability at local level. National level support and initiatives drive to a positive impact on the 
development of interoperable solutions at the local level. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 CONCLUSION  

As indicated in Section 1. Introduction, this report is a deliverable of ISA² Action 2016.33: European 
Interoperability  Framework  Implementation:  EIF  and  Smart  Cities,  towards  a  Smart  Cities  and 
Communities Interoperability Framework. The ISA² Action 2016.33 has three specific objectives:  

•  Develop an Interoperability Framework for local administrations and in particular smart and 

sustainable cities and communities as well as those aiming to become one. 

•  Establish  a  categorisation  of  usable 

identify  a  set  of 
recommendations for local administrations, and in particular smart and sustainable cities and 
communities as well as and those aiming to become one. 

Interoperability  actions  and 

• 

Increase the awareness of interoperability. 

This specific report aimed to provide to the reader the methodology behind the development of the 
EIF4SCC, through the different stages of the project. 

From  a  methodological  point  of  view,  six  steps  were  followed:  a)  literature  review  took  place;  b) 
organisation of 1st co-creation workshop; c) interviews with experts on the topics of interoperability 
and smart cities/communities; d) 2nd co-creation workshop; e) working session with EC staff and f) 
stakeholder consultation. 

Interoperability should be tailored to the specificities of each city and community, there is no model 
that fits all. Moreover, there is neither specific guidelines nor overall [EU] strategy documents specific 
for the local level. 

i)  alignment  and  cooperation 

While  implementing  interoperable  solutions/  services  there  are  two  main  important  aspects  to 
consider: 
ii) 
cities/communities  need  support  from  the  EC,  the  central  government  and  from  other 
cities/communities taking concrete actions. Furthermore, what was observed throughout the project 
is  that  EU  and  national  interoperability  initiatives  often  do  not  reach  local  administrations,  a  close 
contact should be strengthened.  

is  needed  across  the  cities/communities  and 

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The project team would like to extend its thanks to all those who have contributed to the 
development of this framework. This includes the co-creators, interviewees, participants of the 
stakeholder consultation and the project owners who provided information for the use cases.  

The project team is particularly grateful for the time and efforts of the members of DG DIGIT Unit 
and DG CNECT Unit, who have dedicated their time and efforts for the development of this 
framework. 

Note: Contributors are listed in alphabetical order: 

Name  
Agata 

Aleksander 

Alexander 
Anastasija 
André 
Andrea 
Angeles 

Surname 
Sobolewska 

Orłowski 

KOTSEV 
Nikiforova 
Costa 
Barić 
Castello 

Organisation 
Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK) 
Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of 
Management and Economics 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
University of Latvia 
Administrative Modernization Agency (AMA) 

City of Split 

Non-EU citizen 

134 

 
 
 
Anna Lisa 
Antonio 
Asta 
Aurelio 
Ausias 
Barbara 
Bas 
Bernie Odonoghue 
Carlo 
Caroline 
Christos 
Cristina 
Damir 
Dan 
David 
Davor 
Diogo 
Dr Jacqui 
Eddy 

Emanuela 

Emiliano 
Essin 
Fabrizio 
Felix 
Francesco 
Gabriele  
Georg 

George 

Giacomo 
Gianluca 
Gianmarco 
Giuluio 
Graham 
Gregorio 
Hans  
Ilia 
Isa Katharina 
João Rodrigues 
John  
Jonas 
Jordi 
Jordi 
Jurji  
Kadri 

Boni 
Filograna 
GRICIENE 
ESCOBAR 
Pellicer 
CABRERA 
Boorsma 
Hynes 
Lavalle 
CORNEAU 
Ziozias 
COSMA 
Filipovic 
Jiránek 
CUNHA 
Meersman 
Correia 
Taylor 
Hartog 

MORETTINI 

Verga 
Fehmieva 
Giamminuti 
MARTIN 
PIGNATELLI 
Francescotto 
Houben 

Hussey 

Martirano 
Dianese 
PIVA 
Todini 
Colclough 
Olivetti 
Teuben 
Christantoni 
VON KALBEN 
FRADE 
Booth 
ONLAND 
Cirera 
Xirgo 
Dolzan 
Jushkin 

Eurocities 
Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
Freelance 
EU Citizen 
City of Madrid 
Thunderbird School of Global Management  
Local Government Management Agency - Ireland 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
DG DIGIT D3 Unit 
PhD Student 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
AIOTI  
Svaz měst a obcí ČR 
City of Lisbon 
Open & Agile Smart Cities (OASC) 

University of Aveiro/ LUGGit 
FlyingBinary Limited 
DG CNECT C3 Unit 
Project Manager and consultant for R&D 
projects financed under European Programs 
Cefriel 
Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen 
HyMOL srl 
City of Madrid 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
OpenContent SCARL 
DG ENER C2 Unit 
Department of Housing, Local Government and 
Heritage - Ireland 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
Ideasforum 
Deloitte 
OpenContent SCARL 
UrbanDNA 
Systematica 
Capgemini Invent 
City of Athens 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
DG DIGIT D3 Unit 
Carbon3IT Ltd 
Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) 
City of Barcelona 
City of Girona 
Ministry of Public Administration - Slovenia 
Ministry of Finance - Estonia 

135 

 
 
Kaimo 

Käärmann-Liive  

Karmen Kern 

PIPAN 

Association of Estonian Cities and Municipalities’ 
ICT Competence Centre 
Ministry of Public Administration – Slovenia 

Kelly 
Kimmo 
Lodewijk 
Lordana 
Lorena 

Luis 

Maarten 

LILJEMO 
Rautanen 
Noordzij 
ELEFTHERIADOU 
HERNANDEZ 

Vieira 

Gijssel 

Magdalena 

Ciesielska 

Marco 

Marco 
Margariti  
Martin 

Martin 

Matteo 
Maxime 
Maxine 
Michael 
Miguel 
Miguel Segovia 

Daglio 

MINGHINI 
Vicky 
Brynskov 

Gauk 

Satta 
Yvenou 
LEMM 
LUTZ 
ALVAREZ RODRIGUEZ 
MARTÍNEZ 

Mihai  

Bilauca 

Miltiadis 
Nadia 
Natalia Aristimuno 
Olavi 

Olli 

Omar 
Patrice-Emmanuel 
Pavlina 

Pedro 

Peter 
Peter 

Radka 

Raf 
Ramon Ferri 
Raul Mario 
Ray  
Rick 

Peloponnisios 
Crespo 
PEREZ 
Luotonen 

Voutilainen 

Dhaher 
SCHMITZ 
Fragkou 

Viana 

Berkowitz 
ULRICH 

Vladykova 

Buyle 
Tormo 
Abril-Jiminez 
Boguslawski 
Schager 

DG DIGIT D3 Unit 
Åbo Akademi University/Experience Lab 
Eurocities 
DG GROW G2 Unit 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
Administrative Modernization Agency (AMA) 

Kinetic Analysis BV 
Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of 
Management and Economics 

Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OECD 
Initiative) 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
Hellenic Ministry of Digital Governance - Greece 
Open & Agile Smart Cities (OASC) 
European Spatial Planning Observation Network 
(ESPON) 
Major Cities of Europe 
EU Citizen 
Deloitte 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
Green Building Council España 
Department of Housing, Local Government and 
Heritage - Ireland 
EU Citizen 
Non-EU citizen 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
DG CNECT C3 Unit 
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment - 
Finland 
European DIGITAL SME Alliance 
Independent expert 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
Administrative Modernization Agency (AMA) 

DG REGIO G1 Unit 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
Union of towns and municipalities of the Czech 
Republic 
Flanders Information Agency 
City of Valencia 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
EU Citizen 

136 

 
 
Roel 
Roland van der 
Ruben 
Silke 
Sven 
Terpsi 
Thomas  
Tomas 
Trinidad 
Zsofia 
Zsuzsanna 

Raterink 
Heijden 
NARZUL 
Cuno 
SCHADE 
Velivassaki 
Bjørner 
Almeida 
Fernandez 
SZIRANYI 
Bodi 

City of Amsterdam 
City of Rotterdam 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
Fraunhofer FOKUS 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
Synelixis 
Aalborg University 
Schréder 
Triangulum Project 
DG DIGIT D2 Unit 
European Network of Living Labs 

137 

 
 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY  

Ahn, Jae-young, Jun Seob Lee, Hyoung Jun Kim, and Dae Joon Hwang. 2016. “Smart City 

Interoperability Framework Based on City Infrastructure Model and Service Prioritization.” 
International Conference on Ubiquitous and Future Networks, ICUFN: 337–42. 

Albino, Vito, Umberto Berardi, and Rosa Maria Dangelico. 2015. “Smart Cities: Definitions, 
Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives.” Journal of Urban Technology 22(1): 3–21. 

Andročec, Darko. 2017. “Overcoming Service-Level Interoperability Challenges of the IoT.” In 

Connected Environments for the Internet of Things, ed. Z. Mahmood. Springer International 
Publishing AG 2017, 83–101. 

Bannerjee, Siddharth, Jonathan Bone, Yann Finger, and Christopher Haley. 2016. European Digital 

City Index - Methodology Report. https://digitalcityindex.eu/uploads/2016 EDCi Construction 
Methodology FINAL.pdf. 

Bannister, Frank, and Regina Connolly. 2014. “ICT, Public Values and Transformative Government: A 
Framework and Programme for Research.” Government Information Quarterly 31(1): 119–28. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002. 

Bareño, Juan et al. 2017. ESPRESSO - D2.2 – The Scope of Smart City Standardization V2. 

Barricelli, Barbara Rita, Elena Casiraghi, and Daniela Fogli. 2019. “A Survey on Digital Twin: Definitions, 

Characteristics, Applications, and Design Implications.” IEEE Access 7(Ml): 167653–71. 

Bazaz, Sara Moghadaszadeh, Mika Lohtander, and Juha Varis. 2019. “5-Dimensional Definition for a 

Manufacturing Digital Twin.” Procedia Manufacturing 38(2019): 1705–12. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.107. 

Borsekova, Kamila, Samuel Koróny, Anna Vaňová, and Katarína Vitálišová. 2018. “Functionality 
between the Size and Indicators of Smart Cities: A Research Challenge with Policy 
Implications.” Cities 78(June 2017): 17–26. 

Bosch, Peter et al. 2017. CITYkeys Indicators for Smart City Projects and Smart Cities. 

Brandsen, Taco, Trui Steen, and Bram Verschuere. 2018. “Co-Creation and Co-Production in Public 

Services: Urgent Issues in Practice and Research.” In Co-Production and Co-Creation, eds. Taco 
Brandsen, Trui Steen, and Bram Verschuere. New York: Routledge, 3–8. 

Brutti, Arianna et al. 2018. “Interoperability in the Smart City: A Semantic Approach for Merging 

Flexibility with Strictness.” In Proceedings - 2018 IEEE International Conference on Smart 
Computing, SMARTCOMP 2018, IEEE Computer Society, 434–39. 

———. 2019. “Smart City Platform Specification: A Modular Approach to Achieve Interoperability in 

Smart Cities.” In The Internet of Things for Smart Urban Ecosystems, eds. F. Cicirelli et al. Springer 
International Publishing AG, 25–50. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-96550-
5%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1301707%0Ahttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full
/10.1080/09613218.2017.1301707%0Ahttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-96550-5. 

BSI. 2017. Smart Cities.Guide to Establishing a Decision-Making Framework for Sharing Data and 

Information Services. 

138 

 
 
Caithness, Neil, Michel Drescher, and David Wallom. 2017. “Can Functional Characteristics Usefully 

Define the Cloud Computing Landscape and Is the Current Reference Model Correct?” Journal 
of Cloud Computing 6(1): 1–13. 

Cecílio, José, Filipe Caldeira, and Cristina Wanzeller. 2018. “CityMii - An Integration and 

Interoperable Middleware to Manage a Smart City.” Procedia Computer Science 130: 416–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.062. 

Chantillon, Maxim et al. 2017. FLEXPUB Public E-Service Strategy - Report WP2. FLEXPUB - Work 

Package 2 - Baseline Measurement. Leuven. 

———. 2018. FLEXPUB Public E-Service Strategy - Report WP3. FLEXPUB - Work Package 3 - 

Requirements Identification. Leuven. 

———. 2020. FLEXPUB Public E-Service Strategy - Report WP5. FLEXPUB - Work Package 5 - Case 

Studies. Leuven. 

Chantillon, Maxim, Joep Crompvoets, and Vassilios Peristeras. 2017. “The Governance Landscape of 
Geospatial E-Services—The Belgian Case.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 6: 1–
25. http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/6/9/282. 

———. 2020. “Prioritizing Public Values in E-Government Policies : A Document Analysis.” 

Information Polity 25(3): 275–300. 

Chaturvedi, Kanishk, and Thomas H. Kolbe. 2019. “Towards Establishing Cross-Platform 

Interoperability for Sensors in Smart Cities.” Sensors 19(562). 

Čolaković, Alem, and Mesud Hadžialić. 2018. “Internet of Things (IoT): A Review of Enabling 

Technologies, Challenges, and Open Research Issues.” Computer Networks 144: 17–39. 

Consoli, Sergio et al. 2017. “Producing Linked Data for Smart Cities: The Case of Catania.” Big Data 

Research 7: 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bdr.2016.10.001. 

Darmois, E. et al. 2018. H2020 – CREATE-IoT Project Recommendations for Commonalities and 

Interoperability Profiles of IoT Platforms. 

Delgado, José C. 2018. “Asymmetric Interoperability for Software Services in Smart City 

Environments.” In Handbook of Smart Cities: Software Services and Cyber Infrastructure, eds. 
M. Maheswaran and E. Badidi. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018, 255–83. 

Desmarchelier, Benoît, Faridah Djellal, and Faïz Gallouj. “User’s Involvement in Value Co-Creation: 

The More the Better?” European Management Review. 

Dijkstra, Lewis, and Hugo Poelman. 2012. Cities in Europe - The New OECD-EC Definition. 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/focus/2012_01_city.pdf. 

eHealth Network. 2015. EHealth Network - Refined EHealth European Interoperability Framework. 

Brussels. 

Eleftheriadou, Dana. 2019. “100 Intelligent Cities Challenge: A Strategy for Cities in the 21st 

Century.” 

Eurocities. 2019a. “74 Cities Have Already Signed the Declaration on Citizens Engagement.” 

http://eurocities.eu/eurocities/news/74-cities-have-already-signed-the-Declaration-on-
citizens-engagement-WSPO-B7MQ3A%0A (July 14, 2020). 

139 

 
 
———. 2019b. Engaging with Citizens - Report on Results of the “Cities4Europe - Europe for Citizens” 

Campaign and the Citizens Panel Pilot Project. Brussels. 

———. 2019c. “Eurocities Principles on Citizen Data.” 

———. 2020. “Peope-Centred Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Cities - Response to EU’s White Paper on AI.” 

European Commission. 2012a. Communication from the Commission - Smart Cities and Communities 

- European Innovation Partnership. Brussels: European Commission. 

———. 2012b. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - EHealth Action 
Plan 2012-2020 - Innovative Healthcare for the 21st Century. Brussels: European Commission. 

———. 2016a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,  

the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - EU 
EGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020. Brussels. 

———. 2016b. Workshop Report: Supporting the Implementation of EGovernment at Regional and 
Local Level. Brussels. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/event/supporting-implementation-
egovernment-regional-and-local-level. 

———. 2017a. EGovernment in Local and Regional Administrations. Brussels. 

———. 2017b. 2017 New European Interoperability Framework. ed. European Commission. 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 

———. 2018a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Towards a 
Common European Data Space. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
single-market/en/news/public-consultation-building-european-data-economy. 

———. 2018b. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing 

the Digital Europe Programme for the Period 2021-2027. 

———. 2020a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Shaping 
Europe’S Digital Future. Brussels: European Commission. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-shaping-europes-digital-future-
feb2020_en_4.pdf. 

———. 2020b. “Interoperability Academy.” https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/digital-skills-

public-sector/solution/interoperability-academy (September 2, 2020). 

———. “EIF Leaflet.” https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/sites/isa/files/eif_leaflet_final.pdf (August 10, 

2020a). 

———. “Smart Cities - What Are Smart Cities?” https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-
development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities_en (July 12, 
2020b). 

European Parliament. 2014. Mapping Smart Cities in the EU. Brussels. 

140 

 
 
 
 
European Parliament, and Council. 2007. Official Journal of the European Union Directive 2007/2/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 Establishing an Infrastructure 
for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Brussels: European Parliament / 
Council of the European Union.  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:108:0001:0014:EN:PDF. 

European Parliament, and Council of Ministers. 2011. Directive 2011/24/EU of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the Application of Patients’ Rights Regarding 
Cross-Border Healthcare. Brussels: European Parliament / Council of Ministers of the European 
Union. 

———. 2016. Official Journal of the European UnionOfficial Journal of the European Union 

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on 
the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the 
Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC. Brussels: European 
Parliament / Council of Ministers of the European Union. 

———. 2019. Official Journal of the European Union Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on Open Data and the Re-Use of Public Sector 
Information. Brussels: European Parliament / Council of Ministers of the European Union. 

European Parliament, and Council of the European Union. 2019. Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the 

European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019. Brussel: European Parliament / 
Council of the European Union. 

Eurostat. 2020a. “Degree of Urbanisation - Background.” 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/degree-of-urbanisation/background (July 15, 2020). 

———. 2020b. “Local Administrative Units.” https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/local-

administrative-units (July 12, 2020). 

Fiorentin, Enrico. 2019. “Digital Cities Challenge - The Experience of Padua.” 

Fortino, Giancarlo et al. 2018. “Towards Multi-Layer Interoperability of Heterogeneous IoT Platforms: 

The INTER-IoT Approach.” In Integration, Interconnection, and Interoperability of IoT Systems, 
eds. R. Gravina et al. Springer International Publishing AG 2018, 199–232. 

Frascella, Angelo et al. 2018. “A Minimum Set of Common Principles for Enabling Smart City 

Interoperability.” TECHNE Special Is(01): 56–61. 

Gabrielsen, Kristin Rovik. 2017. “Interoperability in Smart Cities - Urban IoT Designing New City 

Services.” Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 

Giffinger, Rudolf, Robert Kalasek, Christian Fertner, and Natasa Pichler Milanovic. 2007. Smart Cities - 

Ranking of European Mid-Sized Cities. Vienna. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/smart-
cities. 

Górski, Tomasz. 2012. “Architectural View Model for an Integration Platform.” Journal of Theoretical 

and Applied Computer Science 6(1): 25–34. 

Gyrard, Amelie, and Martin Serrano. 2016. “Connected Smart Cities: Interoperability with SEG 3.0 for 
the Internet of Things.” Proceedings - IEEE 30th International Conference on Advanced 
Information Networking and Applications Workshops, WAINA 2016 (3): 796–802. 

141 

 
 
High-Level Expert Group on Business-to-Government Data Sharing. 2020. Towards a European 
Strategy on Business-to-Government Data Sharing for the Public Interest. Brussels. 
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=64954. 

Höchtl, Johann, Peter Parycek, and Ralph Schöllhammer. 2016. “Big Data in the Policy Cycle : Policy 
Decision Making in the Digital Era.” Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic 
Commerce 26(1–2): 147–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1125187. 

Holl, Konstantin, and Frank Elberzhager. 2019. 112 Advances in Computers Mobile Application 

Quality Assurance. 1st ed. Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.adcom.2017.12.001. 

Van Der Hoogen, Anthea, Brenda Scholtz, and Andre Calitz. 2019. “A Smart City Stakeholder 

Classification Model.” In 2019 Conference on Information Communications Technology and 
Society, ICTAS 2019, IEEE. 

Hveem, Eva, Veronika Manova, and Heikki Huhmo. Digital Neighbourhood Instrument - A General 

Model and Toolbox to Establish a Digital Center. 

iSCAPE. 2018. ISCAPE Living Labs: Improving Air Quality in European Cities. 

Kshetri, Nir. 2017. Cybersecurity and Privacy Issues Facing Smart Cities: Challenges and Policy 

Responses. 

Kung, Antonio. 2019. “Citizen Centric Approach to Data - GDPR Revisited.” 

Van Langenhove, Philip et al. 2013. EHealth EIF - EHealth European Interoperability Framework: 

Vision on EHealth EIF. Brussels. 

Living-in.EU. 2019. Join Boost Sustain - Declaration on Joining Forces to Boost Sustainable Digital 

Transformation in Cities and Communities in the EU. 

Mergel, Ines, Noella Edelmann, and Nathalie Haug. 2019. “Defining Digital Transformation : Results 

from Expert Interviews.” Government Information Quarterly 36. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002. 

van Montfort, C. 2008. “Besturen van Het Onbekende.” : 1–57. 

Ølnes, Svein, Jolien Ubacht, and Marijn Janssen. 2017. “Blockchain in Government: Benefits and 
Implications of Distributed Ledger Technology for Information Sharing.” Government 
Information Quarterly 34(3): 355–64. 

Open & Agile Smart Cities. 2019. Annex 1: Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms (MIMs). 

https://oascities.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/OASC-MIMs.pdf. 

Osimo, David. 2018. “How Local Government Reform Is Key to Europe’s Digital Success - A Six-Point 

Programme for EGovernment Renewal.” : 12. 

Pantiru, Maria Cristina. 2019. Competencies Necessary for EGovernment. 

Peoples, Carthryn. 2018. “A Standardizable Network Architecture Supporting Interoperability in the 

Smart City Internet of Things.” In InterIoT 2017/SaSeIoT 2017, LNICTS, eds. Giancarlo Fortino et 
al. Springer International Publishing, 38–45. 

Perboli, Guido, Alberto De Marco, Francesca Perfetti, and Matteo Marone. 2014. “A New Taxonomy 

of Smart City Projects.” Transportation Research Procedia 3: 470–78. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.028. 

142 

 
 
Pollitt, Christopher. 2013. New Perspectives on Public Services - Place and Technology. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press. 

Pradhan, Manas. 2019. “Interoperability for Disaster Relief Operations in Smart City Environments.” 
IEEE 5th World Forum on Internet of Things, WF-IoT 2019 - Conference Proceedings: 711–14. 

Pye, Laura, and Katinka Schaaf. 2018. Organicity Playbook - How to Launch Experimentation as a 

Service in Your City. 

Rech, Alexander, Markus Pistauer, and Christian Steger. 2018. “Increasing Interoperability Between 
Heterogenous Smart City Applications.” In Internet and Distributed Computing Systems. IDCS 
2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, eds. Y. Xian et al. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 
2018, 293–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02738-4_27. 

Robert, Jérémy et al. 2017. “Open IoT Ecosystem for Enhanced Interoperability in Smart Cities-

Example of Métropole de Lyon.” Sensors (Switzerland) 17(12): 1–21. 

Sharifi, Ayyoob. 2019. “A Critical Review of Selected Smart City Assessment Tools and Indicator Sets.” 

Journal of Cleaner Production 233: 1269–83. 

———. 2020. “A Typology of Smart City Assessment Tools and Indicator Sets.” Sustainable Cities and 

Society 53(May 2019): 1–3. 

Simonofski, Anthony. 2016. “A Critical Review of Citizen Participation in Smart Cities: The Citizens at 

the Core of Smart Namur.” KU Leuven / University de Namur. 

Simonofski, Anthony, Estefania Serral Asensio, Johannes De Smedt, and Monique Snoeck. 2017. 

“Citizen Participation in Smart Cities: Evaluation Framework Proposal.” In Proceedings - 2017 
IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics, CBI 2017, , 227–36. 

Simonofski, Anthony, Monique Snoeck, and Benoît Vanderose. 2019. “Co-Creating e-Government 
Services: An Empirical Analysis of Participation Methods in Belgium.” In Setting Foundations 
for the Creation of Public Value in Smart Cities, Springer, 225–45. 

U4IoT. “Tools & Support - How Can We Help You?” 

UNaLab. “UNaLAB - Tools for Co-Creation.” https://u4iot.eu/tools-and-support.html (July 26, 2020). 

URBACT. 2013. The URBACT II Local Support Group Toolkit. Saint-Denis. 

Valentino, Stefano. 2019. “‘We Want to Help Cities to Become Interoperable.’” 

https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/News/Data-news/We-want-to-help-cities-to-
become-interoperable (September 8, 2020). 

Warner, Mildred E., and Amir Hefetz. 2008. “Managing Markets for Public Service: The Role of Mixed 

Public-Private Delivery of City Services.” Public Administration Review 68(1): 155–66. 

Willems, Tom, and Wouter Van Dooren. 2013. “Hoofdstuk 2 - Publieke versus Private Organisaties.” 

In Handboek Bestuurskunde, eds. Annie Hondeghem et al. Brugge: Vanden Broele, 49–71. 

Wirtz, Bernd W., Jan C. Weyerer, and Carolin Geyer. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence and the Public 

Sector—Applications and Challenges.” International Journal of Public Administration 42(7): 
596–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103. 

European Commission. 2018. eGovernment Benchmark 2018 - Securing eGovernment for all. 

Brussels: European Commission. 

143 

 
 
https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2018-
47/egovernment_benchmark_2018_background_report_F21FA84B-0254-F4DB-
7B2FC4567D4AA925_55487.pdf. 

European Commission. 2018. D03.01 Interoperability governance models. Brussels: European 

Commission. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2018-
04/SC439_D03.01%20Interoperability%20governance%20models%20v3.00.pdf 

European Commission. 2018. DLV04.01- List of cases where interoperability challenges may occur 

Study on functional, technical and semantic interoperability requirements for the single digital 
gateway (SDG) implementation. Brussels: European Commission. 
https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/sites/default/files/dlv04.01-
_list_of_cases_where_interoperability_challenges_may_occur.pdf 

European Commission. 2020. Digital Public Administration facthseet 2020 - Portugal. Brussels: 

European Commission. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-
files/Digital_Public_Administration_Factsheets_Portugal_vFINAL.pdf. 

European Commission. 2020. Digital Public Administration facthseet 2020 – The Netherlands. 
Brussels: European Commission. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-
files/Digital_Public_Administration_Factsheets_Netherlands_vFINAL.pdf. 

European Commission. 2020. Digital Public Administration facthseet 2020 – Greece. Brussels: 

European Commission. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-
files/Digital_Public_Administration_Factsheets_Greece_vFINAL.pdf. 

European Commission. 2020. Digital Public Administration facthseet 2020 – Slovenia.. Brussels: 

European Commission. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-
files/Digital_Public_Administration_Factsheets_Slovenia_vFINAL_1.pdf. 

European Commission. 2020. Digital Public Administration facthseet 2020 – Ireland. Brussels: 

European Commission. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-
files/Digital_Public_Administration_Factsheets_Ireland_vFINAL.pdf. 

144 

 
 
 
 ANNEXES 

10.1. Annexes related to Chapter 2 – Methodological Process 

Annex 2.I – Interview Respondents 

We express our gratitude to those involved in the research process.  

From the European Commission  

•  Mr. Olavi Luotonen (DG CNECT) 

•  Mr. Eddy Hartog (DG CNECT) 

•  Ms. Cristina Martinez (DG CNECT) 

•  Mr. Raul Mario Abril-Jiminez (DG DIGIT) 

•  Ms. Pavlina Fragkou (DG DIGIT) 

•  Mr. Joao Rodrigues Frade (DG DIGIT) 

•  Ms. Caroline Corneau (DG DIGIT) 

•  Mr. Georg Houben (DG ENER) 

•  Mr. Vincent Leiner (DG REGIO) 

•  Mr. Carlo Lavalle (JRC) 

•  Mr. Sven Schade (JRC) 

•  Mr. Alexander Kotsev (JRC) 

From the Stakeholders:  

•  Mr. Davor Meersman (OASC) 

•  Mr. Martin Brynskov (OASC) 

•  Ms. Zsuzsanna Bodi (European Network of Living Labs) 

•  Ms. Anna Lisa Boni (Eurocities) 

•  Mr. Lodewijk Noordzee (Eurocities) 

•  Mr. Joao Vascocelos (OECD) 

•  Mr. Graham Colclough (UrbanDNA) 

•  Mr. Martin Gauk (ESPON) 

•  Dr. Jacqui Taylor (FlyingBinary Ltd) 

•  Ms. Silke Cuno (Fokus/Fraunhöfer) 

•  Mr. Nikolay Tcholtchev (Fokus/Fraunhöfer) 

•  Mr. Raf Buyle (Vlaamse Overheid / Ghent University, Belgium) 

•  Mr. Damir Filipovic (AIOIT) 

•  Ms. Céline Prins (AIOTI) 

•  Mr. Arthur van der Wees (AIOTI) 

•  Mr. Roland van der Heijden (City of Rotterdam, The Netherlands) 

145 

 
 
•  Ms. Ilia Christantoni (City of Athens, Greece) 

•  Mr. Felix Martin (City of Madrid, Spain) 

•  Mr. Ramón Tormo (City of Valencia, Spain) 

146 

 
 
 
Annex 2.II – Interview Questionnaire – European Commission Staff 

Agenda of the Interviews: 

Introduction, Brief Project overview, Questions, Additional Remarks 

147 

 
 
 
  
 
  
148 

 
 
  
 
 
149 

 
 
 
 
 
150 

 
 
 
 
 
151 

 
 
 
 
 
152 

 
 
 
 
 
153 

 
 
 
 
 
154 

 
 
 
 
 
155 

 
 
 
 
 
156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2.III – Interview Questionnaire – Stakeholders  

Agenda of the Interviews: 

Introduction, Brief Project overview, Questions, Additional Remarks 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
158 

 
 
 
 
 
159 

 
 
 
 
 
160 

 
 
 
 
 
161 

 
 
 
 
 
162 

 
 
 
 
 
163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.2. Annexes related to Chapter 3 – Smart Cities and Communities Interoperability 
Framework: Concept, Definition(s) and Categories 

Annex 3.I – Overview of Selected and Reviewed Literature 

Author (note: only 
first author) 

Year 

Title (note: includes hyperlink) 

Format 

6Aika 
Ahlgren 

Ahn  

Albino 

2020  Smart Cities Work Together 
2016 

Internet of Things for Smart Cities: 
Interoperability and Open Data 
2016  Smart City Interoperability Framework 
based on City Infrastructure Model and 
Service Prioritization 

2015  Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, 
Performance, and Initiatives 

Website 
Journal article 

Conference 
proceeding 

Journal article 

Androcec 

2017  Overcoming service-level interoperability 

Book chapter 

Anthopoulos 

Arcadis 
Avelar 

Bareño 

challenges to the IoT 

2014  Smart Cities and their Roles in City 
Competition: a Classification 
2018  The Sustainable Cities Index 
2015 

Interoperability issues on heterogeneous 
wireless communication for smart cities 

Journal article 

Report 
Journal article 

2017  systEmic Standardization apPRoach to 

Report 

Empower Smart citieS and cOmmunities - 
D2.2 – The Scope of Smart City 
Standardization V2 

Barricelli 

2019  A Survey on Digital Twin: Definitions, 

Journal article 

Characteristics, Applications, and Design 
Implications 

Bazaz 

2019  5-Dimensional Definition for a 

Journal article 

Bel 

Bel 

Manufacturing Digital Twin 

2007  Why do local governments privatise public 

Journal article 

2010 

services? A survey of empirical studies 
Is Private Production of Public Services 
Cheaper Than Public Production? A Meta-
Regression Analysis of Solid Waste and 
Water Services 

Journal article 

Borsekova 

2018  Functionality between the size and 

Journal article 

Brandsen 

indicators of smart cities: A research 
challenge with policy implications 
2018  Co-creation and Co-production in Public 

Brutti 

2018 

Services: Urgent Issues in Practice and 
Research  
Interoperability in the Smart City: a 
semantic approach for merging flexibility 
with strictness 

Book chapter 

Conference 
proceeding 

164 

 
 
Brutti  

Caithness 

Catapult, UITP, RTA 
Cecilio  

Chaturvedi 

City of Padua 
CITYkeys 

CITYkeys 
CITYkeys 
Colakovic 

Consoli 

Dale 
Delgado 

2019  Smart City Platform Specification: A 
modular approach to achieve 
interoperability in smart cities 
2017  Can functional characteristics usefully 

define the cloud computing landscape and 
is the current reference model correct?  

2017  Urban Mobility innovation index 
2018  CityMii - An integration and interoperable 
middleware to manage a Smart City 
2019  Towards Establishing Cross-Platform 

Interoperability for Sensors in Smart Cities 
2019  Digital Cities Challenge - The City of Padua 
2017  CITYkeys indicators for smart city projects 

and smart cities  

2016  Recommendations from cities to cities 
2016  Recommendations for a smart city index 
2018 

Internet of Things (IoT): A review of 
enabling technologies, challenges, and 
open research issues 

Book chapter 

Journal article 

Report 
Journal article 

Journal article 

PPT 
Report 

Report 
Report 
Journal article 

2017  Producing lined data for smart cities: The 

Journal article 

case of Catania 

2016  The return of the chatbots 
2018  Asymmetric interoperability for software 
services in smart city environments 

Journal article 
Book chapter 

Deloitte 
Desmarchelier 

2019  Deloitte City Mobility Index  
2019  Users’ Involvement in Value Co-Creation: 

Report 
Article 

The More the Better? 

Digital Skills Map 
Dijkstra 

2019  Digital Skills Map - Skills & Competences 
2012  Cities in Europe - The New OECD-EC 

Website 
Report 

EasyPark 
Economist Intelligence 
Unit (EIU) in 
cooperation with 
Siemens 
eHealth Network 

EIP-SCC 
EIP-SCC 

EIP-SCC 

EIP-SCC 

EIP-SCC 

Definition 
2019  Smart Cities Index 
2012  Green City Index 

Report 
Report 

2015  Refined eHealth European Interoperability 

Report 

Framework 

2019  Smart City Guidance Package 
2019  Research Study on Urban Data Platforms 

Report 
Research Study 

in Europe 

2016  Towards a joint investment programme 

Report 

for European Smart Cities 

2019  Citizen Centric approach to data – GDPR 

PPT 

revisited 

2017  Rethinking the city: using the power of 

Report 

data to address urban challenges and 
societal change 

165 

 
 
EIP-SCC 

2016  EIP-SCC Urban Platform Management 

Report 

Ericsson 
ESI Thoughtlab 
ETSI 
EU Ministers 

EUPAN 
Eurocities 
Eurocities 

Eurocities 

Eurocities 

Eurocities 

Eurocities 
European Commission 

European Commission 

Framework 

2016  Network Society City Index 
2019  Building a hyperconnected city 
2020  Smart Appliances 
2016  Urban Agenda for the EU - Pact of 

Amsterdam 

Report 
Report 
Website 
Ministerial 
Declaration 

2019  Competencies necessary for eGovernment  Report 
XX 
2020  People-centred Artificial Intelligence (AI) in 

Green Digital Charter 

Website 
Paper 

cities 

2019  Turin citizens panel makes three 
recommendations on technology 
2019  Report on results of the ‘Cities4Europe – 

Website 

Report 

Europe for citizens’ campaign and the 
citizens panel pilot project 
2019  74 cities have already signed the 

Declaration on citizens engagement 
2019  Eurocities principles on citizen data 
2017  The New European Interoperability 

Framework 

2016  Analysing the potential for wide scale roll 
out of integrated Smart Cities and 
Communities solutions 

Declaration 

Report 
Report 

Report 

European Commission 

2017  eGovernment in local and regional 

Report 

administrations 

European Commission 
European Commission 

2019  The future of government 2030+ 
2012  Communication from the Commission - 

Smart Cities and Communities - EIP  

European Commission 
European Commission 

2019  The future of cities 
2020  Communication from the Commission - A 

European strategy for data 

European Commission 

2018  The 2018 Rolling Plan on ICT 

Standardisation 

European Commission 

2016  EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 

European Commission 

2014  Towards a thriving data-driven economy 

European Commission 

2018  Digital Europe Programme 2021-2027 

European Commission 
European Commission 

XX 
City Digital Transformation 
2019  Designing Digital Transformation 

Strategies for EU Cities in the 21st Century 

166 

Report 
Communication 
from the 
Commission 
Report 
Communication 
from the 
Commission 
Report 

Communication 
from the 
Commission 
Communication 
from the 
Commission 
Proposal for a 
regulation 
Report 
Report 

 
 
European Commission 

2019  Designing Digital Transformation 

Report 

European Commission 

2019 

Strategies for EU Cities in the 21st Century 
- Extended Report 
Innovation Procurement - The power of 
the public purse 

Brochure 

European Commission 

2016  Analysis of the Value of New Generation of 

Report 

eGovernment Services and How Can the 
Public Sector Become an Agent of 
Innovation through ICT 

European Commission 

2016  Workshop Report: Supporting the 

Report 

implementation of eGovernment at 
regional and local level 

European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 

2020  EIRA 
2020  CEF Building Blocks 
2020 
Joinup - Solutions 
2019  The Digital Cities Challenge 
2020  Learn about eIDAS 
2018  Towards a common European data space 

European Commission 

2018  Guidance on sharing private sector data in 

European Commission 

the European data economy 

2020  Towards a European strategy on business-
to-governmentdata sharing for the public 
interest 

Website 
Website 
Website 
PPT 
Website 
Communication 
from the 
Commission 
Commission Staff 
Working Document 
Report 

European Commission 

2020  The Digital Economy and Society Index 

Website 

European Commission 

2020  Shaping Europe's Digital Future 

(DESI) 

European Commission 

2012  eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020 - 

Innovative healthcare for the 21st century  

European Commission 

2013  EU Activities in the field of eHealth 

European Parliament 
European Parliament 
European Parliament / 
Council of Ministers 
European Parliament / 
Council of Ministers 
European Parliament / 
Council of Ministers 
European Parliament / 
Council of Ministers 

Interoperability and Standardisation: an 
overview 

2014  Mapping Smart Cities in the EU 
2017  Guide to EU Funding 2014-2020 
2014  eIDAS Regulation 

2019  Revised PSI Directive 

2016  General Data Protection Regulation 

Regulation 

2011  The application of patient's rights in cross-

Directive 

border healthcase 

167 

Communication 
from the 
Commission 
Communication 
from the 
Commission 
Overview 
document 

Report 
Report 
Regulation 

Directive 

 
 
EUSmartCities 

2016 

Inclusive Smart Cities - A European 
Manifesto on Citizen Engagement 

Manifesto 

EY 
EY 
Fortino  

Frascella 

Gabrielsen 
Giffinger 

Górski 

Gupta  

2018  Smart City Index  
2018  Smart Metropolitan Index 
2018  Towards multi-layer interoperability of 

Report 
Report 
Book chapter 

heterogeneous IoT Platforms: The INTER-
IoT Approach 

2018  A minimum set of common principles for 
enabling smart city interoperability  
Interoperability in Smart Cities 

2017 
2007  Smart cities - Ranking of European 

Journal article 

Dissertation 
Report 

medium-sized cities 

2012  Architectural view model for an 

Journal article 

integration platform 

2019  Classification of Smart City Research - a 

Journal article 

Descriptive Literature Review and Future 
Research Agenda 

Gyrard 

2016  Connected smart cities: interoperability 

Holl 
Huawei 
IDC and NOVA IMS  
IES-City Framework 

IESE 
Institute for urban 
strategies, The Mori 
Memorial Foundation 
Interreg 
Mediterranean 
IoT European Large -
scale Pilots Programme 
IoT European Large -
scale Pilots Programme 
IoT European Large -
scale Pilots Programme 
IoT European Large -
scale Pilots Programme 
ISB and Shakti 

iSCAPE 

ITU 

with SEG 3.0 for the internet of things 
2019  Mobile Application Quality Assurance 
2017  UK Smart Cities Index 
2015  Smart Cities Benchmark Portugal 2015 
2018  A consensus framework for smart city 

architectures 
2019  Cities In Motion Index 
2018  Global Power City Index 

XX 

Tools 

Conference 
proceeding 
Journal article 
Report 
Article 
Report 

Report 
Report 

Website 

2020  https://synchronicity-iot.eu/tech/ 

Website 

2018  Recommendations for commonalities and 

Report 

interoperability profiles of IoT platforms 

2017  Strategy and coordination plan for IoT 

Report 

interoperability and standard approaches 

2020  A guide to synchronicity 

Report 

2017  Smart Cities Index -  A tool for Evaluating 

Report 

2018 

Cities 
iSCAPE Living Labs: Improving air quality in 
European cities 

Report 

2014  Smart Cities Key Performance indicators 

Report 

and monitoring 

Juniper Research 
Kolyvakis 

2018  Smart Cities - What's in it for citizens 
2018  Semantic interoperability and open IoT 
APIs for smart cities applications 

Report 
Conference 
proceeding 

168 

 
 
Kshetri 

2017  Cybersecurity and privacy issues facing 

Living-in.EU 
Living-in.EU 

Lodato 

Lopes 

Meiling 

Mergel 

Minister responsible 
for e-Government 
Misuraca 

Nesta 
Nesta, Catapult and 
Accenture 
Nilssen 

Open & Agile Smart 
Cities 
Organicity 

smart cities: challenges and policy 
responses 
Join Boost Sustain Declaration 

2019 
2019  Consolidated Report of Technical 

Specifications to Scale Living-in.EU 
2018  Open goverment data in the smart city: 
Interoperability, urban knowledge, and 
linking legacy systems 

2016  SoS-centric middleware services for 

interoperability in smart cities systems 

2018  MONICA in Hamburg: Towards Large-Scale 

IoT Deployments in a Smart City 
2019  Citizen-Oriented Digital Transformation in 

the Public Sector 

2017  Tallinn Declaration  

2011 

Interoperability Challenges for ICT-enabled 
Governance: Towards a pan-European 
Conceptual Framework 

Research Report 
(chapter) 

Declaration 
Report 

Journal article 

Conference 
proceeding 
Conference 
proceeding 
Conference 
proceeding 
Ministerial 
Declaration 
Journal article 

2016  European Digital City Index 
2015  CITIE 

Report 
Report 

2019  To the smart city and beyond? Developing 
a typology of smart urban innovation 
2019  Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms 

Journal article 

Report 

(MIMs) 

2018  Organicity Playbook - How to launch 

Report 

experimentation as a service in your city 

Osimo 

2018  How local government reform is key to 

Article 

Peoples 

Perboli 

Pereira  

Europe's Digital Success - A Six point 
programme for egovernment renewal 
2018  A standardizable network architecture 
supporting interoperability in the smart 
city internet of things 

2014  A New Taxonomy of Smart City Projects 

2019  Towards a Smart Sustainable City 

Pradhan 

2019 

Roadmap 
Interoperability for disaster relief 
operations in smart city environments 

PROSPECT 
PROSPECT 
PROSPECT 
Rech 

2020  Recommendations - Decision Matrix 
2020  Good Practices 
2020  Results 
2018 

Increasing interoperability between 
heterogenous smart city applications 

Conference 
proceeding 

Conference 
proceeding 
Conference 
proceeding 
Conference 
proceeding 
Website 
Website 
Website 
Conference 
proceeding 

169 

 
 
Robert 

2017  Open IoT ecosystem for enhanced 

Journal article 

Report 
Conference paper 

Website 
Website 
Journal article 

Journal article 

Website 
Conference 
proceeding 
Conference 
proceeding 

Conference 
proceeding 
Journal article 

Journal article 

Dissertation 

Roland Berger 
Russo 

Select for Cities 
Select for Cities 
Sharifi 

Sharifi 

SharingCities 
Sharma 

interoperability in smart cities-example of 
métropole de lyon 
2019  Smart City Strategy Index 
2014  The process of smart city definition at an 

EU level 
SELECT's Vision 
Platform Ambition 

XX 
XX 
2019  A critical review of selected smart city 

assessment tools and indicator sets 
2020  A typology of smart city assessment tools 

and indicator sets 
Smart City Solutions 

XX 
2017  Schemas for IoT Interoperability for smart 

cities 

Shiyan  

2019  Study on interoperability of urban 

information systems: The case of smart St. 
Petersburg 

Simonofski 

2017  Citizen Participation in Smart Cities 

Simonofski 

2018  The impact of user participation methods 

on e-government projects 

2019  Hearing the voice of citizens in smart city 
design: The CitiVoice Framework 
2016  A critical review of citizen participation in 

smart cities 

2019  Siscode Toolbox for co-creation journeys 
2019  Siscode Repository 
2020  Sustainable Procurement Platform 

Report 
Website 
Website 

2017  Safe Cities Index 2017 

2018  Smart City Framework 
XX 
2020  Tools for co-creation 
2017  United Smart Sustainable Cities  
2019  The Global Statistical Geospatial 

Tools & Support - How can we help you?   Website 
Website 
Report 
Report 

Framework 

2013  The URBACT II Local Support Group Toolkit  Report 
2020  Urban Solutions: five early lessons from 
the URBACT Transfer Networks 

Website 

2020  Digital Neighbourhood Instrument 

Report 

Report 

Report 

Simonofski 

Simonofski 

Siscode 
Siscode 
Sustainable 
Procurement Platform 
The Economist 
Intelligence Unit 
Triangulum 
U4IoT 
UNaLAB 
UNECE 
United Nations 

URBACT 
URBACT 

Urban Agenda for the 
EU 
Van der Hoogen 

2019  A Smart City Stakeholder Classification 

Model 

Conference 
proceeding 
Report 

van Langenhove 

2013  eHealth EIF - eHealth European 

Interoperability Framework 

170 

 
 
van Montfort 

2008  Besturen van het onbekende - Goed 

Inaugural Lecture 

Vienna University of 
Technology 
Warner 

bestuur bij publiek-private arrangementen 

2015  EuropeanSmartCities 4.0 

Report 

2008  Managing Markets for Public Service: The 

Journal article 

Role of Mixed Public-Private Delivery of 
City Services 

Willems 
Wimmer 

2013  Publieke versus private organisaties 
2018 

Interoperability Governance: A Definition 
and Insights from Case Studies in Europe 

Book chapter 
Conference 
proceeding 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3.II – Co-creation Workshop #1 Slide Deck 

Agenda of the Interviews: 

Introduction, Project overview, Co-Creating Smart Cities & Communities EIF, Next Steps 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
173 

 
 
 
 
 
174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
175 

 
 
 
 
 
176 

 
 
 
 
 
177 

 
 
 
 
 
178 

 
 
 
 
 
179 

 
 
 
 
 
180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3.III – Co-creation Workshop #1 Report 

Co-Creation of the EIF4SCC Concept & Definition Workshop 

14th of September 2020, 10:30 – 12:30 CET, MS teams 

Workshop Report 

This note is a compilation of the contributions made by the co-creator’s group during a workshop held 
on  14/09/2020.  This  information  will  steer  the  concept  of  the  Smart  Cities  and  Communities 
Interoperability  Framework.  The  workshop  was  structured  with  two  main  objectives:  to  better 
comprehend  the  understanding  of  the  co-creator’s  group  of  the  concepts  of  Smart  Cities  and 
Communities  and  Interoperability;  and  to  define  what  the  concept  of  a  European  Interoperability 
Framework for Smart Cities and Communities meant for the group.  

Introduction 

The workshop was organised as a facilitated discussion among participants. The moderators posed 
questions  about  each  topic,  and  the  members  of  the  co-creators  group  shared  their  immediate 
thoughts and reactions towards each topic.  The discussion was divided into five main topics. First, we 
discussed the challenges in organisations, second 

Round Table Discussion  

Introduction: Main interoperability challenges in organisations 

Urban  data  sharing  platforms  were  mentioned  as  a  very  good  example  of  interoperability  success 
stories. With new IT systems, platforms, and APIs in the market it is much easier to connect and to 
integrate  data  and  new  services.  However,  old  legacy  systems  are  still  a  bottleneck  to  solve, 
considering the technology limitations, lack of standards and integration capabilities.  

The  exchange  of  data  between  administrations  in  Europe,  either  among  local  administrations  and 
between  the  different  levels  of  public  administration  is  also  considered  a  challenge,  due  to  the 
different  types  of  data  and  the  need  for  standardisation  of  protocols.  Some  of  the  cities  and 
municipalities are well advanced and have also highlighted some examples27 regarding applications. 

It was discussed that interoperability challenges can occur between different cities in Europe. It was 
mentioned  that  interoperability  challenges  also  have  an  important  impact  across  cities  within  the 
same  geographical  area  when  it  comes  to  the  need  of  providing  coordinated  public  services  (e.g. 
mobility). 

Most of the experts shared the concern that municipalities still need to pave a long way to comply 
with interoperability mechanisms: lack of interconnection among different city departments and with 
companies  is  still  a  challenge.  Their  priorities  are  still  more  focused  on  including  new  city  services 
instead of solving the interoperability challenges. There is also a need to put the focus on how to create 
new systems to support the city services and how to open them to any type of service provider. 

Another  raised  point  was  the  security  of  data  and  its  critical  role:  it  is  crucial  not  only  to  have 
information  on  time  to  ensure  high  levels  of  performance  but  also  to  have  legal,  security,  privacy 
compliance, operational and organisational support. Lastly, the need for the development of public 
services based on SOA (service-oriented architecture) was also mentioned. 

27 IRMA, a decentralized e-identification system: Privacy by Design Foundation IRMA - https://privacybydesign.foundation/en/ 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Topic 1: Interoperability 

In order to make the workshop more interactive, real time voting tools were used. The final result of 
the first question regarding what is the main added value of increased interoperability at local level, 
was the following one: 

Regarding  the  definition  of  interoperability,  experts  think  that  the  concept  is  too  focused  on 
technology and technical content and it should be more holistic, connecting with different systems 
and aligned with the EU needs. Another relevant issue to highlight is the need to better exchange data 
and information. This will ensure an EU-wide approach (including a legal framework) that is not taking 
place nowadays, since the reality of Municipalities is quite different from the national government. It 
was also said that the Local level interoperability definition needs to be aligned with the other levels 
of public administration. 

Experts mentioned that it is important to get a clear understanding of what interoperability means: 
seamless sharing of data is more complex than just complying with standards28.  

Standards are definitely useful to have but in some cases, they are not transferable or understandable 
by some public service functions/departments (for example, the procurement departments). There is 
a need for a holistic view which must include all layers or dimensions of interoperability. Nevertheless, 
it is extremely important to simplify the meaning of interoperability in order to avoid the technicalities, 
which only some experts really understand. 

Main Conclusions and Action Plan: 

a)  Main concerns when it comes to interoperability 

•  Once only principle 

•  Simplification, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency 

•  Knowledge: sharing, reusability 

•  Ecosystem: dialogue, cooperation 

•  Services: faster (speed), user-friendly, better, less costs 

28 Standard means a technical specification, adopted by a recognised standardisation body, for repeated or continuous 

application, with which compliance is not compulsory. https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/CEF+Definitions 

183 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
•  Governance: better, cooperative 

•  Data: open source, EU APIs 

b) Action plan 

•  The concept will be revised to be more holistic including in all layers and less focus on 

technology & technical content. 

•  The definition must be simpler and concrete, aligned with the reality of municipalities in 

order to allow a better understanding from the different stakeholders. 

•  The local level interoperability definition will be revised to be more aligned with the other 

levels. 

Topic 2: SCCEIF – Concept  

For the second topic, voting real time tools were also used. Participants were asked about what comes 
to their mind, when they think about Smart Cities and Communities EIF. The result was the following: 

There  is  a  need  for  cities  and  municipalities  to  be  closer  to  the  national  government,  by  taking 
advantage not only of standards and collection of data from all sectors (including data sources and 
data from public and private entities and also a clear need to share concrete use cases and practices.  

The collaboration between cities is also an added value to share knowledge and best practices (e.g. 
think mobility as a service) and the approach at the EU level was mentioned as desired. Standards 
were also mentioned as required, in different domains and in different services. 

The concept should explore the reality itself and take into consideration the operational perspective, 
focusing on uses cases that are understandable by all. For instance, the case of mobility as a service 
solution that everyone talks about but no-one has it. This example reflects the complexity and the 
need  for  more  standardisations  at  an  EU  level.  The  co-creators  also  identified  that  standards  are 
required for each city domain for those who develop solutions. There is the need to identify the main 
urban  platforms,  independent  from  the  IoT  providers.  Lastly,  some  participants  referred  the 
importance of the private sector, since city services are often managed by them and interoperability 
of the data they use and generate is important to better manage the city through a holistic perspective. 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Main conclusions and action plan: 

a) Main concerns when it comes to the SCCEIF concept 

•  Standards, integration 

•  Principles, recommendations 

•  Ecosystem: cooperation, collaboration 

•  Technology: IoT, APPs, smart services, open data sources, data sharing 

• 

Legal and privacy issues 

•  Citizen centric and quality of life 

b) Action plan 

•  To  ensure  that  standards  requirements  to  each  city  domain  (and  IoT  providers)  are 

included in the definition. 

• 

Inclusion of the private sector as a key stakeholder in the SCCEIF definition. 

•  The EIF4SCC report will include concrete examples, focusing on uses cases and sharing of 
best practices at the operational level that are understandable for all, including policy and 
decision makers. 

Topic 3: SCCEIF – Principles  

The principles proposed for the SCCEIF are based on the Living-in.EU declaration. It was highlighted by 
the  participants  that  interoperability  requires  principles  and  that  are  also  necessary  at  all  levels, 
including  the  policy  level.  Some  suggestions  were  made  about  the  collaboration  and  collective 
approach between all the actors involved in the interoperability ecosystem that must include private 
and public entities. Additionally, it was suggested to include an extra layer on service interoperability. 
But  overall,  the  principles  of  the  Living-in.EU  declaration  did  not  lead  to  major  discussion  or 
controversy. 

Main conclusions and action plan: 

•  To ensure that interoperability principles covered all levels, including the policy level.  

•  To ensure that collaboration and collective approach between all the actors, including private 

and public sector, are stated in the principles. 

•  The definition should include an extra layer about service interoperability. 

Topic 4: SCCEIF - Layers 

The layers proposed for the SCCEIF are based on the EIF 2017: legal interoperability, organisational 
interoperability, semantic interoperability and technical interoperability.  

It  was  suggested  to  add  the  service  interoperability  layer  to  ensure  that  services  are  operational 
between  each  other.  The  future  layers  have  to  be  adjusted  to  the  reality  of  smart  cities  and 
communities and need to have a more operational perspective, to allow a greater fit to the reality of 
the city management and operations. 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main conclusions and action plan: 

•  To  evaluate  the  need  for  the  service  interoperability  layer  ensuring  that  services  are 

operational between each other.  

•  Adjust  and  fine-tune  the  layers  according  to  the  reality  of  the  city  management  and 

operations. 

List of participants 

•  Celia Aguiar – City of Lisbon 

•  David Cunha - City of Lisbon 

•  Felix Martin – City of Madrid 

• 

Ilia Christantoni – City of Athens 

•  Olli Voutilainen - Ministry of Economic Affairs of Finland 

•  Roel Raterink – City of Amsterdam 

•  Ramon Ferri Tormo – City of Valencia  

•  Kadri Jushkin - Ministry of Finance of Estonia 

186 

 
 
 
 
10.3. Annexes related to Chapter 4 – Proposal for an EIF4SCC  

Annex 4.I – Co-creation Workshop #2 Slide Deck 

187 

 
 
 
188 

 
 
189 

 
 
190 

 
 
191 

 
 
Annex 4.II – Co-creation Workshop #2 Report 

Co-Creation of the European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities 

11th of January 2021, 10:30 – 13:00 CET, MS Teams 

Workshop Report 

This report is a compilation of the contributions made by the co-creator’s group during the workshop 
held  on  11/01/2021.  This  information  will  contribute  to  the  elaboration  of  the  European 
Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC). The workshop was structured 
with two main goals: validate the definitions of the concepts, the principles, and the elements of the 
Framework; and discuss specific recommendations and use cases for each principle and element of 
the Framework. 

Introduction 

The workshop was organised  
to facilitate the discussion among participants. In order to make the 
most out of this session, a summary report with the main findings of the first version of the EIF4SCC 
was  shared  in  advance  with  the  co-creators.  The  moderators  posed  questions  and  the  co-creators  
shared their thoughts and reactions towards each topic.  

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The workshop was divided into two topics: (1) validation of the concepts definitions, the principles, 
and the elements of the framework and (2) sharing recommendations and best practices of use cases. 

Progress of the study 

Concepts Validation 

The  concepts  of  Interoperability,  Smart  Cities  and  Communities,  and  European  Interoperability 
Framework  for  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  were  developed  as  a  result  of  the  literature  review, 
based on the outcomes of the first workshop held on 14th of September 2020, and on the interviews 
with more than 30 stakeholders. The team presented and discussed these concepts: 

• 

Interoperability - The ability of organisations and individuals to interact towards the delivery 
of  services  in  cities  and  communities,  through  the  exchange  of  data,  information  and 
knowledge, enabled by aligned processes and digital technologies. 

•  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  -  A  sustainable  city/community  aiming  to  the  well-being  of 
their  inhabitants,  visitors,  businesses  and  city/community  administrators  by  offering  digital 
enabled services/technologies. 

•  European  Interoperability  Framework  for  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  (EIF4SCC)  -  An 
approach to support the development of interoperable services in a city/community, aiming 
to  a  sustainable  development  and  the  well-being  of  its  inhabitants,  visitors,  business  and 
city/community administrators. 

The aim was to validate the concepts with the co-creators and to better understand to what extent 
they agree with the concepts definitions above.   

Real time voting tools were employed and the result was the following: 

By analysing the average of the scores, and the distribution of the curves for each definition, it can be 
concluded that the co-creators generally agree with the presented definitions. However, looking into 
the  interoperability  concept,  one  of  the  co-creators  did  not  entirely  agree  with  the  definition 
presented.  According  to  this  co-creator  cities  themselves  do  not  have  the  capacity  to  make 
interoperability standards, and should instead focus on the interoperability of service delivery.  

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Regarding the EIF4SCC concept, one of the co-creators pointed out that “well-being” is a very broad 
adjective. 

Main Conclusions and Action Plan: 

a)  Main Conclusions 

•  The definitions are aligned and meet the experts view and expectations 

b)  Action plan 

•  Since there is a consensus with the definitions in general no further actions will be taken 

Recommendations and use cases 

The  team  used  an  online  collaborative  tool  (Miro)  to  facilitate  the  discussion  and  the  co-creation 
process for the second part of the workshop. Participants were asked to write on recommendations 
linked with use cases on a digital “post-it”. 

This exercise was split into two parts: the first part focused on the elements, while the second part 
focused on the principles of the Framework. 

Elements 

The  elements  of  the  EIF4SCC,  consists  of:  (1)  five  components:  Cultural  interoperability,  Legal 
interoperability,  Organisational 
interoperability  and,  Technical 
interoperability,  Semantic 
interoperability;  (2)  one  cross  cutting  layer:  Integrated  Service  Governance  -  that  covers  all  the 
components, and represents the overall structure and interoperability of these components and; (3) 
Interoperability Governance background. 

A  brief  explanation  on  the  elements  was  presented  to  ensure  that  these  concepts  were  well 
understood as the co-creators would make use of them during the exercise. 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Based on the outcome of the co-creation exercise, the following recommendations and use cases were 
consolidated.29  

•  Cultural Interoperability 

Recommendation 

Use case description 

To  ensure  that  different  stakeholders  are 
involved  in  the  process  of  definition  and/or 
design  of 
solutions  and 
services,  so  that  cultural  differences  and 
specificities are accounted for. 

interoperable 

Leuven  -  people  from  different  nationalities,  religions, 
political  views,  gender,  were  included  when  deciding  their 
city's future. 

To  monitor  technologies,  such  as  written 
codes  from  AI  algorithms,  to  avoid  biases 
(ethnic,  religious  beliefs,  etc.)  that  can 
discriminate people. 

Linköping  Municipality  -  used  the  Tengai  robot  on  their 
recruitment processes. "Tengai AB is a HR Tech start-up based 
in Sweden that is combining AI and an unbiased recruitment 
methodology in the world’s first interview robot, Tengai." * 

• 

Legal Interoperability 

Recommendation 

Use case description 

To ensure compliance of the data ownership 
and  data  privacy,  when 
to 
identifying personal data (this avoids sharing 
detailed information that it is not required). 

it  comes 

Netherlands  –  IRMA  is  unique  privacy-friendly  identity 
platform  for  both  authentication  and  signing.  The  app 
empowers citizens to disclose some of their attributes online 
(“over  18”),  while  at  the  same  time  hides  other  (like  their 
name,  or  phone  number),  this  way  IRMA  protects  their 
privacy. 

To  ensure  harmonisation  of  open  data, 
through  the  use  of  the  Creative  Commons 
Licences to increase the use of open data. 

Paris - the Museums have recently made available their digital 
collections  to  the  public  domain  with  a  Creative  Commons 
licence to ensure a higher uptake of their collection by citizens 
and businesses. 

Lisbon  –  “Lisboa  Aberta”  is  a  free  data  sharing  portal 
produced by the Lisbon City Council and the partner entities 
of  the  Lisboa  Aberta  program,  with  the  aim  of  enhancing 
citizen  participation,  encouraging  the  reuse  and  sharing  of 
data, stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation. The use of 
the  data  is  free  of  charge  and  the  rights  relating  to  users' 
accessibility to data are licensed under the Creative Commons 
CC Zero Attribution 1.0 license. 

29 In some cases, due to overlap, some recommendations were merged and others were not included, since they were out of 
the scope. 
* Use case not discussed during the workshop. 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
•  Organisational Interoperability 

Recommendation 

Use cases 

To  ensure  that  the  (local)  organisations  can 
effectively  communicate  and  transfer  data 
and information, also across different data and 
information  systems,  infrastructures  and/or 
geographic regions and cultures. 

Hungary - has thousands of local government organisations, 
with  an  overall  lower  level  of  digitalisation,  and  a  need  to 
provide local services to citizens across multiple sectors. The 
Hungarian  Government  responded  to  these  challenges 
through  the  creation  of  a  municipality  Application  Service 
Provider  –  a  cloud-based  service  for  all  municipalities 
providing  both  a  user-friendly  interface  for  citizens  and  a 
back-end integrated system for the local administrations. 

To  create  a  EU/national  helpdesk/service 
point for local governments that they can refer 
to when designing new apps/digital services to 
prevent them from reinventing the wheel. 

The  Association  of  Netherlands  Municipalities  (VNG)  - 
facilitates  municipalities  with  the  exchange  of  knowledge 
and  experience  regarding  the  implementation  of  national 
and local policies. 

•  Semantic Interoperability 

Recommendation 

Use case description 

To perceive data and information as a public 
asset that should be appropriately generated, 
collected,  managed,  shared,  protected  and 
preserved. 

Flanders – the Local Decisions as Linked Open Data project 
ensures  an  automated  update  of  data  in  databases.  This 
allows the data to be made available in other datasets in a 
more  efficient  and  effective  way,  without  the  need  for  a 
human  intervention.  It  creates  possibilities  on  the  overall 
accessibility  of  the  data  for  citizens,  businesses  and  other 
governmental layers. 

To  ensure  that  data  within  a  city/  region/ 
country/ EU can be shared between services, 
and that the different actors providing services 
can connect to relevant data. 

The Amsterdam Data Exchange (Amdex) - aims to provide 
broad  access  to  data  from/for  researchers, companies  and 
private individuals. Inspired through the Open Science Cloud 
of  the  European  Commission,  the  project  is  intended  to 
connect with similar projects across Europe. 

To create more horizontal services, abonding 
silos  in  order  for  cities  to  eveolve  towards 
urban data platforms. 

Helsinki - has the Helsinki Region Infoshare, an Open Data 
service that helps people find urban data in Helsinki and in 
the  neighbouring  cities  Espoo,  Vantaa  and  Kauniainen. 
Moreover,  this  service  has  over  10,000  different  points  of 
interest 
in  the  Helsinki  metropolitan  area,  such  as 
restaurants and historical landmark locations. In addition to 
this,  the  City  is  also  pursuing  other  avenues  to  get  benefit 
from  Open  Data  and  create  impact.  Currently,  the  City  of 
Helsinki is testing several IoT platforms with the intention of 
collecting  data  that  can  later  be  published  as  open  urban 
data.* 

* Use case not discussed during the workshop. 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
•  Technical Interoperability 

Recommendation 

Use case description 

To develop/provide digital services for public 
administrations  ensuring  that  citizens  can 
authenticate using a single access in multiple 
services. 

Portugal - digital mobile key allows citizens to access a wide 
range of national services, such as: National Health Service 
Portal, Tax Portal, Criminal Record Certificate Portal, as well 
as local services.  

Lisbon - landlords can apply for cities programmes (funding 
support from the municipality) such as "Renda Segura", with 
the same digital mobile key. 

To  promote  the  awareness  of  the  existing 
standards  of 
the 
importance and advantages of using them to 
developers and buyers. 

interoperability  and 

Barcelona - has an Ethical Digital Standards: A Policy Toolkit, 
which is an open source Policy Toolkit for cities to develop 
digital  policies  that  put  citizens  at  the  centre  and  drive 
governments more open, transparent, and collaborative. * 

To ensure compliance with standards, such as 
Interoperability  Mechanisms 
the  Minimal 
(MIMs)  during  the  design/  development/ 
implementation phase of a service. 

Athens - the current challenge is to create an interactive pool 
of city data that will be dynamically updated, open, robust 
and usable for evidence-based decision making to enhance 
the Athens’ liveability experience for all. Hence, the need for 
an integrated Digital Twin with the capacity to merge all the 
city’s digital sources and make it easily accessible and useful 
for exploration and experimentation. 

During public procurement procedures, open 
standards  and  sources  should  be  included  in 
the possible evaluation criteria. 

Lisbon - during the launch of public procurement to set up 
the Intelligent Platform of Lisbon it was mandatory that the 
Fiware standards were followed. 

To develop apps/ digital services ensuring that 
the system is open by default (even if there are 
no  standards  available,  systems  should  allow 
for integration with others through APIs). 

The  Intelligent  Platform  of  Lisbon  is  technological  solution 
that  provides  a  complete  capacity  for  monitoring,  analysis 
and management of the entire urban ecosystem, based on 
the use of open technologies. 

Espoo - offers the Rest service, whose interface follows the 
oData specification. Through the open REST interface on the 
espoo.fi  website  it  is  possible  to  search  for  data  from  the 
whole website, a specific navigation level or by some website 
language 
classification.  The 
versions of the espoo.fi website (Finnish, Swedish, English). 
The  search  can  be  limited  by  content  type.  The  search 
parameters are described in more detail in the attachment 
below provided in Finnish.* 

interface  covers  all  three 

* Use case not discussed during the workshop. 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
• 

Integrated Service Governance 

Recommendation 

Use case description 

To  ensure  transparency  when  sharing  data 
between the public and private sector by using 
electronic notifications. 

To regulate and/or develop together with the 
private sector solutions that ensure that users 
from different EU cities/ communities can use 
the  same  service,  no  matter  where  they  are 
(from). 

To use open and reusable digital solution, such 
as  CEF  building  blocks,  as  much  as  possible 
when creating new services. 

Cities should provide services that the private 
sector is not targeting (e.g. publishing APIs to 
drive 
the  development  of  new  digital 
solutions). 

The  tax  authority  in  Spain  -  allows  the  private  sector  to 
receive  notifications  with  total  security  and  integrity  via 
electronic  media,  either  by  means  of  notification  by 
electronic  appearance  or  through  the  use  of  the  e-mail 
address created for such purpose. 

Genova and Savona - citizens/ tourists/ inhabitants etc. can 
easily  use  the  urban  mobility  app,  Mooveit,  to  see  in  real 
time the status of the public transportation in these 2 cities.* 

Norwegian  Digitalisation  Agency  –  uses  Commission’s  Big 
Data tool to optimise public procurement.* 

Berlin Open Data REST API – Berlin.de is the online portal to 
the city of Berlin, Germany. The site offers information and 
news  for  government,  arts  and  entertainment,  tourism, 
economy,  traffic,  weather,  and  more.  Berlin  Open  Data 
(daten.berlin.de)  is  the  data  portal  for  the  records  of  the 
Berlin  public  administration.  Available  records  include: 
labour  market;  education;  geography  and  urban  planning; 
sports  and  recreation;  elections;  economy;  and  more.  A 
single,  RESTful  API  is  available  to  access  data  from  both. 
Responses  are  formatted  in  XML,  JSON,  CSV,  KML,  and 
more.* 

Cities should support Business to Government 
(B2G) data sharing platforms & mechanisms. 

• 

Stockholm  -  is  part  of  the  "Uber  Movement" 
that  provides  data  and  tools  for  the  city  to 
more  deeply  understand  and  address  urban 
transportation challenges.* 

* Use case not discussed during the workshop. 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Principles 

Regarding the principle’s  discussion, the same rationale was applied, first  the five principles of the 
EIF4SCC  were  presented  and  afterwards  the  co-creators  were  expected  to  prepare  some 
recommendations  and  use  cases.  However,  due  to  time  constraints,  there  was  no  opportunity  to 
prepare recommendations, so the focus from the co-creators was on identifying use cases for each of 
the principles and some challenges. 

Principle 

Recommendation 

Use case description 

Human Driven 

City needs-led 

life 

To  ensure  the  promotion  of 
citizens'  quality  of 
(e.g. 
living,  social  care, 
assistance 
health,  education,  culture  and 
environment),  when  developing 
solutions. 

To use existing forums, networks 
and  working  groups,  such  as 
living-in.EU, 
Intelligent  Cities 
Challenge, Open and Agile Smart 
Cities,  where  entities  can  share 
their  experience  and  learn  from 
others. 

Technologies  as  key 
enablers 

To  ensure  that  the  technology  is 
seamless  to  use  by  all  the 
ecosystem,  when  developing 
digital solutions. 

-  Santa  Casa  da  Misericórdia 

- 
Porto 
Establishes 
to  create 
the  commitment 
synergies  with  companies  to  develop  new 
products and services that meet the needs of 
the  elderly.  The  organisation  has  a  large 
knowledge  and  experience  with  the  elderly 
people and how to create new solutions to the 
problems that they face.* 

Le  Havre  -  part  of  the  Intelligent  Cities 
Challenge  (ICC),  expect  a  lot  from  the  ICC, 
primarily  that  it  acts  as  a  platform  and  a 
facilitator  to  rally  the  city’s  digital 
local 
ecosystem  around  a  common  cause.  Their 
ultimate  hope  is  for  the  ICC  to  develop  a 
common  governance  model  that  allows 
different  stakeholders  to  meet,  discuss  and 
debate important issues.* 

Municipality of Cascais - citizens, residents or 
tourists,  can  easily  report  different  types  of 
situations  in  public  spaces,  such  as  damaged 
sidewalks,  poorly  placed  or  damaged  traffic 
signs,  the  need  for  street  cleaning,  etc. 
through an App - Fix Cascais.* 

* Use case not discussed during the workshop.

199 

Participatory-driven 

To  involve  the  citizens  on  co-
creation  process,  of  the  city's 
decision-making process, in order 
improve  their 
to  ensure  and 
participation. 

Tallinn - using a stakeholder involvement app 
- AvaLinn - to encourage co-creation and offer
an  easy  way  to  give  feedback  on  different
development plans.*

Ethical  and 
responsible 

socially 

is 
To  ensure  that  technology 
developed  in  a  responsible  way 
and so shared data is protected. 

Milan  -  joined  the  G20  Global  Smart  Cities 
Alliance. The aim of this alliance is to adopt a 
new  global  policy  roadmap 
in  different 
policies,  which  one  of  those  is  targeted  to 
deployed 
technology 
ensure 
that 
responsibly.* 

is 

Regarding  the  “City  needs-led”  and  “Technology  as  key  enabler”  principles,  one  of  the  co-creator 
considers  these  two  as  the  main  guidelines  that  should  be  applied  to  all  projects. 
Nowadays, the city represented by this co-creator does not run projects that do not tackle problems 
according to its needs, even if these have cutting-edge technology. 

Main conclusions and action plan: 

a) Main conclusions

• While the co-creation workshop led to relevant recommendations, there is still the need

to further illustrate each recommendation with concrete examples / use cases

b) Action plan

•

•

Analyse each of the recommendations and use cases proposed by the experts and align
them with the different elements and components of the framework

Explore additional recommendations and use cases

The workshop concluded with a short discussion over the need to develop a conceptual model for the 
EIF4SCC,  taking  as  a  baseline  the  conceptual  model  of  the  EIF.  The  co-creators  concluded  that  the 
EIF4SCC should have a conceptual model applied to Interoperability for the specific case Smart Cities 
and Communities. 

List of participants (6) 

• David Cunha - City of Lisbon

•

•

•

•

•

Barbara Cabrera – City of Madrid

Felix Martin – City of Madrid

Ilia Christantoni – City of Athens

Roel Raterink – City of Amsterdam

Ramon Ferri Tormo – City of Valencia

* Use case not discussed during the workshop.

200 

Annex 4.III – Stakeholder Consultation Survey & Stakeholder Consultation Results 

About Section 

1.

You are replying as:

Academic / Research Institution

Business Association

EU citizen

Non-EU citizen

Other (please specify)

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Public authority

Company / Business organisation

European institution

2. How  familiar  are  you  with  smart  cities  digital  services  (mobility,  energy,  water  management,  waste
management, urban planning, housing, education, health, etc.)?

2%

23%

23%

46%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

3. How familiar are you with the current European Interoperability Framework (EIF)?

15%

2%

25%

29%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

29%

201 

4. Would you like your name to be included in the list of acknowledgment of EIF4SCC report?

6%

94%

5. List of respondents (48 respondents)

•

Academic / Research Institution

o Åbo Akademi University/Experience Lab
o Thunderbird School of Global Management
o University of Aveiro and LUGGit
o Cefriel
o University of Latvia
o Aalborg University
o Gdańsk University od Technology
o Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of Management and Economics
o Fraunhofer FOKUS

•

•

Business Association

o GBCe
o European DIGITAL SME Alliance

EU/ Non-EU Citizen

o Finland
o Greece
o Greece
o France
o Spain
o Netherlands
o Argentina
o Italy

•

NGO’s

o IDEASFORUM
o Major Cities of Europe
o OASC
Public authority

•

o Local

202 











City of Split

Lisbon Municipality

Ayuntamiento de València

Svaz měst a obcí ČR

City of Rotterdam

 Métropole Européenne de Lille

o Regional





o National

Union of towns and municipalities of the Czech Republic

Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen

 Ministry of public administration - Slovenia

•

Company / Business organisation

o Systematica
o FlyingBinary Limited
o Capgemini Invent
o HyMOL srl
o Carbon3IT Ltd
o Kinetic Analysis BV
o Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
o Bgk
o Schréder
o Synelixis
European institution

•

o Jordi Xirgo
o Jordi Cirera

• Other

o Individual expert, i.e. not representing the opinion of my entire institution
o PhD candidate in Smart Cities
o Expert, advising the EC
o Project Manager and consultant for R&D projects financed under European Programs
o FREELANCE

203 

Definitions 

1. To what extent do you agree with the definition of interoperability? 

19%

31%

50%

2. To what extent do you agree with the definition of Smart City/Community? 

10% 2%

27%

27%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

33%

Do not know / no opinion

3. To what extent do you agree with the definition of EIF4SCC? 

4%

17%

35%

42%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know/ no opinion

204 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Principles 

1. To what extent do you agree with the description of the human-centric approach principle? 

4% 4%

15%

40%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

38%

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  human-centric 
approach  principle:  Ensure  that  inhabitants  and  visitors  can  play  an  active  role  by  connecting, 
engaging  and  enabling  them  in  the  policy-making  and  testing  solutions  for  smart  cities  and 
communities. 

2%

19%

23%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

56%

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

b.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  human-centric 
approach principle: As far as possible under the legislation in force, ask cities/communities service 
users once-only and relevant-only information. 

4% 4%

4%

15%

25%

48%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

c.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  human-centric 
approach  principle:  Ensure  that  accessibility  for  inhabitants  and  visitors  (including  people  with 
disabilities,  elderly  and  other  disadvantaged  groups)  are  taken  into  consideration  during  the 
procurement,  design,  development,  implementation  and  monitoring  phase  of  the  service,  by 
respecting the e-accessibility specifications at the regional, national, European or international level. 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10%

29%

60%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

2. To what extent do you agree with the description of the city needs-led approach at EU level principle? 

2% 4%

2%

19%

38%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

35%

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  city  needs-led 
approach  at  EU  level principle:  Join  existing  forums,  networks  and  working  groups,  at  the  local, 
regional, national and European level to boost cooperation, collaboration, join forces, discuss and 
share experiences and best practices. 

2% 4%

2%

17%

42%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

33%

Do not know / no opinion

3. To what extent do you agree with the description of the city as a participatory-driven and open innovation 
ecosystem principle? 

17%

31%

52%

206 

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the city as a participatory-
driven and open innovation ecosystem principle: Ensure collaboration and communication between 
inhabitants, business,  visitors  and city/community administrators,  in your  city/community,  so  that 
different  needs  (e.g.  assisted  living,  social  care,  health,  education,  culture  and  environment), 
challenges and requirements are addressed in a collaborative way by involving those stakeholders 
with all the necessary competencies and/or skills in the co-creation and co-production of services. 

2%

19%

23%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

56%

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

b.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the city as a participatory-
driven and open innovation ecosystem principle: Foster an open innovation ecosystem (local living 
labs) to ensure that the local community is actively involved in creating new and scaling up solutions. 

2%

15%

29%

54%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

4. To what extent do you agree with the description of the ethical and socially responsible access, use, sharing 
and management of data and technology principle? 

8%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

35%

56%

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the ethical and socially 
responsible access, use, sharing and management of data and technology principle: Make sources of 
information available to inhabitants, business, visitors and city/community administrators ensuring 
security and privacy in accordance with the relevant legislation and contribute to the EU smart cities 
data space. 

207 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
6% 2%

25%

67%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

b.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the ethical and socially 
responsible  access,  use,  sharing  and  management  of  data  and  technology principle:  Ensure  that 
digital rights are respected during the design, development, implementation and monitoring phase 
of the digital services (including GDPR issues). 

2%

15%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

81%

Do not know / no opinion

c.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the ethical and socially 
responsible  access,  use,  sharing  and  management  of  data  and  technology principle:  Ensure 
transparency  on  data  sharing  collaborations  between  and  within  government,  citizens  and 
businesses. 

19%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

81%

Do not know / no opinion

5.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  description  of  the  technologies  as  key  enablers,  not  as  the 
objective principle? 

208 

 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
10%

38%

52%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the technologies as key 
enablers, not as the objective principle: Use open standards and open technical specifications when 
developing  local  data  platforms  and  services,  include  multiple  access  and  assistance  channels  to 
ensure that users can choose the option that best addresses their needs and/or preferences. 

2%

31%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

67%

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

b.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the technologies as key 
enablers, not as the objective principle: : Implement seamless solutions at the service of inhabitants, 
businesses, visitors and city/community administrators, leveraging from advanced technologies (such 
as IoT, blockchain, AI, etc.). 

4% 2%

13%

40%

42%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

c.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the technologies as key 
enablers, not as the objective principle: Set-up an interoperable local data platform that integrates 
and reuse data of cities and communities by the local stakeholders, and promotes open standards 
and open technical specifications, APIs and data models to provide a holistic view of the information. 
This aims to support policy makers in decision-making process and to foster innovation and citizen 
engagement. 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2% 2%

4%

31%

60%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

Elements 

1. To what extent do you agree with the description of the interoperability governance background? 

4% 4%

43%

49%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  interoperability 
governance background: Define a holistic governance of interoperability services across domains and 
stakeholders at the local level, complying with national and European interoperability requirements 
to ensure interoperability across cities/communities, regions and borders. 

2% 4%

2%

8%

29%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

54%

Do not know / no opinion

2. To what extent do you agree with the description of the integrated service governance cross-cutting layer? 

2% 6%

8%

42%

42%

210 

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the integrated service 
governance cross-cutting layer: Reuse and share solutions and services by cooperating with different 
stakeholders in the design, development, implementation and monitoring phase at the local, regional, 
national and European level. 

2% 2%

2%

33%

60%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

b.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the integrated service 
governance  cross-cutting  layer:  In  coordination  with  the  holistic  governance  of  interoperability, 
establish an integrated governance structure to ensure interoperability in coordination among the 
different stakeholders involved in the delivery of the integrated services. 

2% 4%

4%

13%

31%

46%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

c.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the integrated service 
governance  cross-cutting  layer:  Establish  and  publish  an  API  design  guideline  to  facilitate  the 
automation of data share and data access of the city and community to enable the development of 
(new) services and solutions. 

2% 6%

10%

19%

63%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

d.  To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the integrated service 
governance cross-cutting layer: Support and/or promote best practices among local administrations, 
at an early stage of any (new) service design, development and implementation phase. 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2% 2%

8%

25%

63%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

3. To what extent do you agree with the description of the cultural interoperability layer? 

4%2% 6%

19%

33%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

35%

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  cultural 
interoperability layer: Ensure that diverse stakeholders (inhabitants, businesses, visitors and cities/ 
communities administrators) are involved in a multidisciplinary process of definition and/or design of 
interoperable services so that societal cultural (economic, ethnic, religious beliefs, gender, language) 
differences are accounted for. 

4% 4%

17%

27%

48%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

b.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  cultural 
interoperability layer:  Monitor  software  codes  and  ensure  transparency  of  AI  algorithms,  to  avoid 
biases (economic, ethnic, religious beliefs, gender, etc.) that can discriminate people. 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2% 4%

6%

15%

46%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

27%

Do not know / no opinion

4. To what extent do you agree with the description of the legal interoperability layer? 

4% 2%

8%

50%

35%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the 

legal 
interoperability layer: Place a solid and trusted legal framework to enable and facilitate data sharing 
across stakeholders and across domains at local, regional, national and European level. 

6% 2%0%

15%

13%

65%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

b.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the 

legal 
interoperability layer:  Communicate  clearly  the  right  to  access  and  reuse  of  open  data.  The  legal 
permission  for  facilitating  access  and  reuse,  such  as  Creative  Commons  Licenses,  should  be 
standardized as much as possible. 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2% 2%

6%

25%

65%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

5. To what extent do you agree with the description of the organisational interoperability layer? 

2% 2%

23%

35%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

38%

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  organisational 
interoperability layer:  Put  in  place  an  organisational  structure  to  establish  clear  roles  and 
responsibilities of business processes to deliver local services. 

4%

8%

15%

38%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

35%

Do not know / no opinion

6. To what extent do you agree with the description of the semantic interoperability layer? 

6%

6%

10%

21%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

56%

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  semantic 
interoperability layer: Ensure a common understanding of the data and information (format, meaning 
of  data,  relationship  between  parties),  across  stakeholders  and  across  domains  at  local,  regional, 
national and European level. 

4% 4%

4%

4%

15%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

69%

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

7. To what extent do you agree with the description of the technical interoperability layer? 

2% 4%

2%

15%

25%

52%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

a.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  technical 
interoperability layer: Create  more  transversal  services  towards  local  data platforms, to  overcome 
silos  within  different  domains,  by  encouraging  collaboration  and  engagement  among  inhabitants, 
business, visitors and city/community administrators. 

6%

2%

6%

31%

54%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

b.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  technical 
interoperability layer: Develop and provide services that ensure inhabitants, businesses and visitors 
are able to identify and authenticate using eID schemes 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2% 4%

2%

4%

33%

54%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

c.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  technical 
interoperability layer:  Use  the  Minimal  Interoperability  Mechanisms  (MIMs)  and  the  CEF  Builsing 
Blocks, based on commonly agreed open standards and open technical specifications for achieving 
interoperability of data, systems, and services, to support cities/ communities and suppliers during 
the design, development and implementation phase of new services or reengineer existing ones (to 
avoid “reinventing the wheel”). 

10%

2%

4%

8%

23%

52%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

d.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  technical 
interoperability layer:  Use  and  raise  awareness  of  the  benefits  to  apply  open  standards  and  open 
technical  specifications  amongst  smart  cities/communities  service  providers,  during  the  design, 
development and implementation phase. 

2% 4%

8%

25%

60%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

e.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  technical 
interoperability layer: Ensure a local level playing field for open source software and demonstrate 
active and fair consideration to increase the quality and interoperability solution and become more 
cost-efficient. 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4% 4%

8%

38%

46%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

f.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  recommendations  below  related  with  the  technical 
interoperability layer: Develop apps/ digital services ensuring that these are open by default (even if 
not using open standards and open technical specifications, the apps/ digital services should allow 
integration with others through APIs, to boost the digital transformation at local level). 

2% 4%

2%

10%

31%

50%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conceptual Model 

1.  From  your  experience  and  expertise,  is  this  simplified  model  missing  any  other  element  for  Integrated 
Service Delivery in a Smart City/Community? 

24%

35%

41%

2. To what extent do you agree with the recommendations below related with the conceptual model: Use the 
conceptual model for European Smart City and Community Services to support the design of new services or 
update existing ones and reuse, if possible, existing data, service components and digital solutions such as CEF 
Building Blocks, ISA2 solutions. 

35%

10%

6%

6%

8%

33%

Completely

To a great extent

To some extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / no opinion

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.4. Annexes  related  to  Chapter  5  –  EIF  Recommendations  for  Smart  Cities  and 
Communities 

Annex 5.I – Project Overview 

Task 1  Project Management and Quality assurance 

Task 2  Study of local Administrations-Smart Cities and Communities  

A02.01 Define the concept of a Smart Cities and Communities Interoperability 
Framework  
A02.02 Engagement of local Administrations 

A02.03 Stakeholder engagement  

Task 3  Smart Cities and Communities Interoperability Framework  

A03.01 Preparatory work  

A03.02 Prepare EIF Draft 

A03.03 Validation of EIF 

A03.04 Finalise EIF version for Smart Cities and Communities 

Task 4 

Interoperability recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities 

A04.01. EIF recommendations for policy makers in Smart Cities and Communities 

A04.02 Document Analysis on supporting instruments for interoperability 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5.II – Recommendations retrieved from the Literature Review 

Recommendation 
Have defined actors steering and managing the flow of data. 
Do not focus on standardisation, but focus on finding an agreement on the use of data and/or service schemas 
for the interacting devices.  
Define a common strategy, shared between all individual stakeholders in a smart city/community, in order to 
create the conditions to favour and improve its adoption. 
Build a system in which different actors can offer their products and services, mentioning the special conditions 
or purchase services for the other participants. 
Implement measures to educated users so that they understand the potential value of various categories of data 
and information belonging to them. 
Create a data broker to receive and forward data, to those allowed to receive the data, with a well-developed 
reporting and logging module.  
Do not try to collect all available data resources within a central data repository, but ensure that the data remains 
with the data owners.  
Ensure that a change management culture is installed 
Ensure that the city administration has an overview of all the ongoing services that are delivered. 
Build a resource catalogue which allows users and providers of data and tools to meet each other, in order to 
set-up a collaboration.  
Create a genuine long-term perspective beyond the current political cycle, agreed upon with the stakeholders, 
to  ensure  that  short  term  actions  during  the  political  cycle  contribute  to  long-term  aims,  and  help 
cities/communities to fulfil their obligations. 
Develop a holistic, interdisciplinary and multisectoral approach to identify and stimulate the exploitation of 
potential synergies.  
Set-up  internal  and  external vehicles for  collaboration  in smart  city/community  projects  to overcome  siloes 
within government sectors and businesses and to enable public-private collaboration. 
Ensure wide, early and in-depth stakeholder engagement to achieve agreement on the overall project aim and 
the proposed measures, and to tie in other benefits important to the users and owners of the project. 
Work on the creation of a higher level of trust, to de-risk plans and to become more attractive for investors. 
Monitor and evaluate progress according to Quality Management Systems approaches, ensuring that the cities’ 
/ communities' overall end goals are eventually met. 
Develop frameworks for accountable and trustworthy use of data(platforms) and AI. 
Use common public procurement practices to jointly define specifications and reduce the cost of investing in 
successful digital platforms and related technologies. 
Use  a  commonly  agreed  list  of  standards  and  technical  specifications  to  achieve  interoperability  of  data, 
systems, and platforms among cities and communities and suppliers around the world 
Make key enablers of city digital solutions — including data, infrastructure and services — available to all. 
Use the Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms (MIMs) universal tools for achieving interoperability of data, 
systems, and services between cities and suppliers around the world. 
Set-up a central coordination unit that promotes links between the city/community administration and the other 
ecosystem stakeholders.  
Appoint a chief digital officer, and install a supporting board of Smart City / Community experts. 
Make use of innovative procurement approaches, such as Public Procurement of Innovative Solutions (PPI) 
and Pre-Commercial Procurement (PCP). 
Build a smart and cooperative network amongst all the main interested stakeholders.  
Create a database with all city/community ecosystem stakeholders.  
Make use of common standards for public and private sector data, metadata, representation and standardised 
transfer protocols.  
Create the position of a data steward via a collaboration between the Smart City/Community stakeholders.  
Be transparent on Business-2-Government data collaboration, including on the data used and the impact of the 
partnership.  
Develop a public-private data task force to stimulate the exchange and sharing of data.  

220 

 
 
 
 
Annex  5.III  –  Recommendations  retrieved  from  the  Interviews  with  EC  Staff  Members  and 
Stakeholders 

Recommendation 
Think of how to include interoperability when rethinking an existing (service) 
process.  

Source 
European Commission Staff 

Create a knowledge transfer to empower the staff in your local administration 
with the required digital and interoperability skills and competences.  

European Commission Staff 

Open the service process, so that it can be reused by others or serve as a source 
of inspiration.  

European Commission Staff 

Evaluate the extent to which interoperability is present in the services offered.   European Commission Staff 

Collaborate  and  communicate  with  inhabitants,  business,  visitors  and 
city/community  administrators  in  your  city/community,  so  that  different 
needs, challenges and requirements can be connected to each from the start of 
a new project.  

European Commission Staff 

When working together with others, discuss and align working practices at 
the beginning of the project.  

European Commission Staff 

Make use of existing standards, tools and building blocks when developing 
and reengineering services.  

European Commission Staff 

Work together with business, while avoiding vendor lock in.  

European Commission Staff 

Bring    inhabitants,  business,  visitors  and  city/community  administrators 
together  to  reflect  on  the  development  of  a  Smart  City/Community  in  an 
interoperable way.  

European Commission Staff 

Reflect  on  how  different  services  can  be  integrated  and  connected  to  each 
other, and what is required to make this integration and connection.  

European Commission Staff 

Use the enablers to enable, not as an objective.  

European Commission Staff 

Develop  machine  readable  and  standardised  licenses  allowing  machines  to 
read data without human intervention.  

European Commission Staff 

Strive towards collaboration and synergies with other cities/communities. 

European Commission Staff 

Take  a  holistic  perspective  on  service  delivery  (i.e.  reflect  on  the  different 
partners, services, required connections, time perspective etc.) 

European Commission Staff 

Ensure  that  financial  means  are  foreseen  to  support  the  interoperability 
activities of the Smart City/Community.  

European Commission Staff 

Understand that the city/community administration, is only one of the actors 
within the broader ecosystem of a Smart City/Community.  

European Commission Staff 

Identify common values and interest when collaborating with a new partner.   European Commission Staff 

Try to implement projects which results can be perceived in the short-term. 
This can encourage the participants and help to engage more actors. 

Stakeholders 

It is very important to engage the final user since the beginning of the process.  Stakeholders 

221 

 
 
If the actors are not very familiar with data sharing and processing, the MIMs 
and related projects can be helpful as examples.  

Stakeholders 

The European Commission should increase its support to medium and small 
size cities. There should be a budget to implement the EIF4SCC. Based on 
the projects a good practices document can be developed.  

Stakeholders 

Stop focusing on big cities. 

Stakeholders 

Cities  should  be  engaged  in  many  smart  and  interoperability  projects  as 
possible, as more projects they are involved, better they will become. 

Stakeholders 

There  should  be  an  event  where  cities  present  their  interoperability 
experiences. 

Stakeholders 

Cities and communities require leaders that care and know about the benefits 
of  interoperability.  Therefore,  platforms  sharing  this  message  should  be 
developed and promoted. 

Stakeholders 

A  working  group  that  operates  as  a  network  on  the  topic  of  smart 
cities/communities and interoperability should be created. 

Stakeholders 

Governance  strategies  about  data,  adapted  to  specific  contexts  should  be 
promoted 

Stakeholders 

222 

 
 
 
 
Annex 5.IV – Original 2017 EIF Recommendations  

Original Recommendation in EIF 
Ensure that national interoperability frameworks and interoperability strategies 
are  aligned  with  the  EIF  and,  if  needed,  tailor  and  extend  them  to  address  the 
national context and needs 
Publish the data you own as open data unless certain restrictions apply 
Ensure a level playing field for open source software and demonstrate active and 
fair consideration of using open source software, taking into account the total cost 
of ownership of the solution 
Give  preference  to  open  specifications,  taking  due  account  of  the  coverage  of 
functional needs, maturity and market support and innovation 
Ensure  internal  visibility  and  provide  external  interfaces  for  European  public 
services. 
Reuse and share solutions, and cooperate in the development of joint solutions 
when implementing European public services 
Reuse  and  share  information  and  data  when  implementing  European  public 
services, unless certain privacy or confidentiality restrictions apply. 
Do  not  impose  any  technological  solutions  on  citizens,  businesses  and  other 
administrations  that  are  technology-specific  or  disproportionate  to  their  real 
needs. 
Ensure data portability, namely that data is easily transferable between systems 
and applications supporting the implementation and evolution of European public 
services without unjustified restrictions, if legally possible. 
Use multiple channels to provide the European public service, to ensure that users 
can select the channel that best suits their needs. 
Provide  a  single  point  of  contact  in  order  to  hide  internal  administrative 
complexity and facilitate users’ access to European public services. 
Put  in  place  mechanisms  to  involve  users  in  analysis,  design,  assessment  and 
further development of European public services. 
As  far  as  possible  under  the  legislation  in  force,  ask  users  of  European  public 
services once-only and relevant-only information. 
Ensure  that  all  European  public  services  are  accessible  to  all  citizens,  including 
persons with disabilities, the elderly and other disadvantaged groups. For digital 
public  services,  public  administrations  should  comply  with  e-accessibility 
specifications that are widely recognised at European or international level 
Define  a  common  security  and  privacy  framework  and  establish  processes  for 
public services to ensure secure and trustworthy data exchange between public 
administrations and in interactions with citizens and businesses 
Use information systems and technical architectures that cater for multilingualism 
level  of 
when  establishing  a  European  public  service.  Decide  on  the 
multilingualism support based on the needs of the expected users. 
Simplify processes and use digital channels whenever appropriate for the delivery 
of European public services, to respond promptly and with high quality to users’ 
requests  and  reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  public  administrations, 
businesses and citizens. 
Formulate  a  long-term  preservation  policy for  information  related  to  European 
public services and especially for information that is exchanged across borders. 
Evaluate  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  different  interoperability  solutions 
and  technological  options  considering  user  needs,  proportionality  and  balance 
between costs and benefits 
Ensure  holistic  governance  of  interoperability  activities  across  administrative 
levels and sectors. 
Put  in place  processes  to  select  relevant  standards  and  specifications,  evaluate 
them,  monitor  their 
implementation,  check  compliance  and  test  their 
interoperability. 

223 

Link to aspect of EIF 
Principles 

Principles 
Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Principles 

Interoperability 
governance 
Interoperability 
governance 

 
 
Use a structured, transparent, objective and common approach to assessing and 
selecting  standards  and  specifications.  Take 
into  account  relevant  EU 
recommendations and seek to make the approach consistent across borders 
Consult relevant catalogues of standards, specifications and guidelines at national 
and EU level, in accordance with your NIF and relevant DIFs, when procuring and 
developing ICT solutions. 
Actively participate in standardisation work relevant to your needs to ensure your 
requirements are met. 
Ensure interoperability and coordination over time when operating and delivering 
integrated public services by putting in place the necessary governance structure. 
Establish interoperability agreements in all layers, complemented by operational 
agreements and change management procedures. 
Ensure  that  legislation  is  screened  by  means  of  ‘interoperability  checks’,  to 
identify any barriers to interoperability. When drafting legislation to establish a 
European  public  service,  seek  to  make  it  consistent  with  relevant  legislation, 
perform a ‘digital check’ and consider data protection requirements. 
Document  your  business  processes  using  commonly  accepted  modelling 
techniques  and  agree  on  how  these  processes  should  be  aligned  to  deliver  a 
European public service. 
Clarify  and  formalise  your  organisational  relationships  for  establishing  and 
operating European public services. 
Perceive  data  and  information  as  a  public  asset  that  should  be  appropriately 
generated, collected, managed, shared, protected and preserved. 
Put in place an information management strategy at the highest possible level to 
avoid fragmentation and duplication. Management of metadata, master data and 
reference data should be prioritised. 
Support the establishment of sector-specific and cross-sectoral communities that 
information  specifications  and  encourage  relevant 
aim  to  create  open 
communities to share their results on national and European platforms. 
Use  open  specifications,  where  available,  to  ensure  technical  interoperability 
when establishing European public services. 
Use the conceptual model for European public services to design new services or 
reengineer existing ones and reuse, whenever possible, existing service and data 
components 
Decide  on  a  common  scheme  for  interconnecting  loosely  coupled  service 
components  and  put  in  place  and  maintain  the  necessary  infrastructure  for 
establishing and maintaining European public services. 
Develop a shared infrastructure of reusable services and information sources that 
can be used by all public administrations. 

Make authoritative sources of information available to others while implementing 
access and control mechanisms to ensure security and privacy in accordance with 
the relevant legislation. 
Develop interfaces with base registries and authoritative sources of information, 
publish the semantic and technical means and documentation needed for others 
to connect and reuse available information. 
Match each base registry with appropriate metadata including the description of 
its  content,  service  assurance  and  responsibilities,  the  type  of  master  data  it 
keeps, conditions of access and the relevant licences, terminology, a glossary, and 
information about any master data it uses from other base registries. 
Create  and  follow  data  quality  assurance  plans  for  base  registries  and  related 
master data. 

Establish  procedures  and  processes  to  integrate  the  opening  of  data  in  your 
common business processes, working routines, and in the development of new 
information systems. 

224 

Interoperability 
governance 

Interoperability 
governance 

Interoperability 
governance 
Integrated public service 
governance 
Integrated public service 
governance 
Legal Interoperability 

Organisational 
interoperability 

Organisational 
interoperability 
Semantic 
interoperability 
Semantic 
interoperability 

Semantic 
interoperability 

Technical 
interoperability 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 

for 
public 

for 
public 

for 
public 

for 
public 

for 
public 

for 
public 

Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 

for 
public 

for 
public 

 
 
Publish  open  data  in  machine-readable,  non-proprietary  formats.  Ensure  that 
open  data  is  accompanied by  high  quality,  machine-readable  metadata  in  non-
proprietary  formats,  including  a  description  of  their  content,  the  way  data  is 
collected  and  its  level  of  quality  and  the  licence  terms  under  which  it  is  made 
available.  The  use  of  common  vocabularies  for  expressing  metadata 
is 
recommended. 
Communicate clearly the right to access and reuse open data. The legal regimes 
for facilitating access and reuse, such as licences, should be standardised as much 
as possible. 
Put  in  place  catalogues  of  public  services,  public  data,  and  interoperability 
solutions and use common models for describing them. 

Where useful and feasible to do so, use external information sources and services 
while developing European public services. 

Consider the specific security and privacy requirements and identify measures for 
the provision of each public service according to risk management plans. 

Use  trust  services  according  to  the  Regulation  on  eID  and  Trust  Services  as 
mechanisms that ensure secure and protected data exchange in public services. 

Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 

for 
public 

for 
public 

Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 
Conceptual  model 
integrated 
services provision 

for 
public 

for 
public 

for 
public 

for 
public 

10.5. Annexes related to Chapter 6 – National Support for Interoperability Cities and 
Communities  

Annex 6.I – Project Overview 

Task 1  Project Management and Quality assurance 

Task 2  Study of local Administrations-Smart Cities and Communities  

A02.01 Define the concept of a Smart Cities and Communities Interoperability 
Framework  
A02.02 Engagement of local Administrations 

A02.03 Stakeholder engagement  

Task 3  Smart Cities and Communities Interoperability Framework  

A03.01 Preparatory work  

A03.02 Prepare EIF Draft 

A03.03 Validation of EIF 

A03.04 Finalise EIF version for Smart Cities and Communities 

Task 4 

Interoperability recommendations for Smart Cities and Communities 

A04.01. EIF recommendations for policy makers in Smart Cities and Communities 

A04.02 Document Analysis on supporting instruments for interoperability 

225 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6.II - Interview Questions 

A.  Vision & Strategy 

1. 

In your view, what is the vision of interoperability at national level of your country? 

2.  What  are  the  most 

important  strategies,  policies,  and  regulations  related  to 
interoperability at the national level? Is there a new legislative package under discussion? 

3.  Do  you  have  an  interoperability  strategy  for  local/regional  administrations  or  does  the 

national one include the local/regional level? 

4.  What are the main objectives under these strategies, policies, and regulations related with 
interoperability? What is the state of play of its implementation and level of maturity? 

B.  Main Challenges and Constraints 

5.  How does the current legislation impacts positively the interoperable systems at local level 

administration? 

6. 

In the current legislation and regulation, what are the main challenges and type of barriers 
that  you  identify  that  can  delay  the  development  and  implementation  of  more 
interoperable systems within the local administrations? 

C.  Best Practices and Use Cases 

7.  How  has  national  legislation  supported  the  uptake  implementation  of  interoperable 

services in cities? Are there tools to support this?  

a. 

If yes, is there any procedure to monitor and to report the state of the play (e.g. 
monthly meeting with the municipalities, surveys, etc.)? How do you measure the 
success? 

b. 

If  not,  how  can  these  be  promoted  to  increment  their  usage  (#  and  depth) 
alongside the cities? How do you measure the success? 

8. 

9. 

Is there a specific program developed that convers interoperability initiatives? 

In your country, what are the best practices (funding incentives, government models, IT 
solutions,  pilots,  etc.)  or  use  cases  that  you  would  like  to  highlight,  that  are  related  to 
interoperability domain? Would you also like to share best practices that you consider as 
a role-model from other countries? 

10. As  a  last  question,  do  you  think  that  it  is  important  to  have  a  strong  communication, 
between the national level and the local when developing, implementing and monitoring, 
interoperability solutions, policies and drawing recommendations? 

Annex 6.III - Outcomes of the interviews with Member State Representatives 

Portugal 

1. 

In your view, what is the vision of interoperability at national level of your country?  

Since 2015, interoperability has been a priority of the Portuguese government. 

One  of  the  most  important  documents  that  address  interoperability  at  the  moment  is  the  ICT 
Strategy 2020, which scope was defined at the end of 2020.  The Administrative Modernization 
Agency  (AMA)  has  a  new  proposal  to  present  to  the  Portuguese  government  regarding  the 
interoperability pillar of the document. 

AMA’s vision is the following: whenever there is an exchange of information between sectorial 
areas,  these  should  use  the  Interoperability  Platform  for  the  Public  Administration  (iAP).  For 

226 

 
 
 
example, if DGEG wants to use information from the tax service, they should access it through the 
national interoperability platform. However, this is not mandatory, and no entity/organisation is 
forced to use the iAP.  

2.  What are the most important strategies, policies, and regulations related to interoperability 

at the national level? Is there a new legislative package under discussion?  

The most important legislation in place is the Council of Ministers’ Resolution No 42/2015, of 19 
June 2015, that foresees the preferential adoption of the iAP as the main platform for information 
exchange among public administration departments and entities. 

During 2021, AMA will review the ICT Strategy 2020 and will prepared a new legislative package 
towards interoperability,  that includes an intermediate approach towards base registries.  

Do you have an interoperability strategy for local/regional administrations or does the national 
one includes the local/regional level?  

There is no official strategy for local/ regional interoperability and the existing strategy at local 
public administrations (PA) is towards the central PA. However, there are several initiatives at the 
national level, that positively impact the deployment of interoperable solutions at the local level.  

Additionally, AMA’s view is that the integration platforms should exist at the regional levels, rather 
than on locals, otherwise it would be hard to implement. 

3.  What are the main objectives under these strategies, policies, and regulations related with 
interoperability? What is the state of play of its implementation and level of maturity? 

The  main  objective  is  to  highly  recommend  the  local  PAs  to  use  and  benefit  from  the  national 
interoperability  platform  when  providing  their  services.  Currently,  there  are  123  entities 
registered in the platform, which have reached the following numbers: 

- Savings of more than 6.487,4 M€; 

- More than 430.322.347 hours saved for citizens, and more than 73.919.536 hours saved for PA 
servants; 

- 494,21 tons of neutralized carbon.  

4.  How does the current legislation impact positively the interoperable systems at local level 

administration? 

The  current  legislation  creates  a  reference  for  the  municipalities:  for  example,  it  gives  support 
about whom to address when they need a specific service. 

Additionally,  the  current  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  (GDPR),  represents  a  big 
advancement to AMA's capacity to create new digital services, rather than a barrier, since in some 
countries data is shared freely. 

5. 

In the current legislation and regulation, what are the main challenges and type of barriers 
that  you  identify  that  can  delay  the  development  and  implementation  of  more 
interoperable systems within the local administrations? 

Since it is not mandatory for local authorities to use the iAP, one of the major concerns of AMA is 
that the local authorities start developing their own integration platforms that might not able to 
communicate with the others nor with the iAP. 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Moreover, the current legislation does not allow a unique/single citizen’s database, meaning that 
interoperable services are crucial to ensure a request of information from a specific service as well 
as to facilitate the sharing of information within PAs.   

For example, the national ID card contains 4 main numbers to identify the citizen: national ID card 
number, the tax number, the social security number, and the health services number. 

6.  How  has  national  legislation  supported  the  uptake  implementation  of  interoperable 

services in cities? Are there tools to support this? 

There are several cities and municipalities that are integrated through the iAP. However, since the 
use of the platform is a recommendation (and not mandatory), there are no implementation nor 
monitorization tools/ strategies. When a municipality needs a specific service, AMA replicates it (if 
the service already exists) or develops a new one. This is done ad-hoc and there is no governance 
structure in place right now. 

a. 

If yes, is there any procedure to monitor and to report the state of the play (e.g. 
monthly meeting with the municipalities, surveys, etc.)? How do you measure the 
success? 

Not applicable. 

b. 

If not, how can these be promoted to increment their usage (# and depth) alongside 
the cities? How do you measure the success? 

The monitoring of the adoption of interoperability services by the municipalities is not a 
focus right now. 

7. 

Is there a specific program developed that convers interoperability initiatives? 

Yes, there are quite a few, but none that is focused entirely on interoperability. There is the SAMA 
–  Sistema  de  Apoio  à  Transformação  Digital  da  Administração  Pública,  that  is  focused  on  co-
financing opportunities; the Zero Licensing and Industrial Licensing that address licensing issues 
and  the  Citizen  Spots,  a  multiservice  physical  desks  for  assisted  digital  service  delivery,  in  a 
partnership with municipalities. 

8. 

In  your  country,  what  are  the  best  practices  (funding  incentives,  government  models,  IT 
solutions,  pilots,  etc.)  or  use  cases  that  you  would  like  to  highlight,  that  are  related  to 
interoperability domain? Would you also like to share best practices that you consider as a 
role-model from other countries? 

iAP is used by some private entities, most of them coming from the banking sector. The use of iAP 
facilitates the opening of a bank account since it enables to check all the information required by 
the Portuguese central bank. 

Another use case is the Social Energy Tariff (TSE) with DGEG (Directorate General for Energy and 
Geology)  –  The  social  energy  tariff  was  created  to  reduce  the  energy  costs  of  household 
consumers, to ensure the purpose of universal access to quality services at affordable prices.  To 
apply for the Social Energy Tariff, citizens are not required to intervene in the process: During the 
signature  of  the  electricity  and  gas  contracts,  iAP  requests  information  to  the  Tax  and  Social 
Security  Authority,  to  confirm  that  the  customer  can  benefit  from  more  affordable  prices 
according with the citizen's situation (for e.g. lower income or special conditions). By using iAP, 
the  number  of  families  covered  by  the  TSE  have  increased  from  around  100.000  to  800.000 
families. 

228 

 
 
 
 
More use cases: https://tic.gov.pt/pt/web/tic/-/plataforma-de-interoperabilidade-da-
administracao-publica-com-novo-site-e-novos-servicos and https://www.iap.gov.pt/  

9.  As  a  last  question,  do  you  think  that  it  is  important  to  have  a  strong  communication, 
between the national level and the local when developing, implementing and monitoring, 
interoperability solutions, policies and drawing recommendations? 

Yes. 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Netherlands 

1. 

In your view, what is the vision of interoperability at national level of your country?  

There  are  several  developments  in  the  digital  infrastructure.  The  Ministry  of  the  Interior  and 
Kingdom Relations is working on a centralised way such as core identity, core registrations, within 
others.  

One of the biggest challenges that the Ministry is facing is "how to make sure that the API strategy 
makes the most use of the core registrations", and this is where the topic of interoperability is 
crucial. 

2.  What are the most important strategies, policies, and regulations related to interoperability 

at the national level? Is there a new legislative package under discussion?  

Currently, in the Netherlands, the focus is on how to create a "more digital government", a digital 
identity related to the implementation of the single digital gateway.  

National legislation is in place and is being developed by the government: the Data Governance Act.  

In the upcoming year, new legislation will be in place such as digital identity, and others, as a result 
of  the  translation  of  the  interoperability  principles  to  concrete  legislation  -  e.g.  translating  the 
Tallinn declaration principles to legislation. 

3.  Do  you  have  an  interoperability  strategy  for  local/regional  administrations  or  does  the 

national one includes the local/regional level?  

In the Netherlands, the national-level strategy takes into consideration the municipalities’ need’s 
by involving them in the decision-making process at national level that impacts at local level. 

The  municipalities are also aligned with each other  and they agreed  that certain initiatives are 
better to organise just once rather than each municipality organise it for itself - e.g. centralised 
procurement process. 

4.  What are the main objectives under these strategies, policies, and regulations related with 
interoperability? What is the state of play of its implementation and level of maturity? 

The state of play in the Netherlands is quite critical. Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Estonia 
are  much  further  ahead,  as  they  have  in  place  a  specific  Minister  that  is  responsible  for  the 
digitisation of the government. In the Netherlands, the leadership is split, e.g. the Ministry of the 
Interior and Kingdom Relations is responsible for the e-government, the Ministry of Economics for 
the  ecosystems,  innovation,  startups,  and  smart  cities,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Security  for 
cybersecurity. 

5.  How does the current legislation impact positively the interoperable systems at local level 

administration? 

The current Digital Services Act is a very detailed document: it integrates legislation and contains 
specific guidelines to the municipalities for the uptake of interoperable systems at the local level. 

6. 

In the current legislation and regulation, what are the main challenges and type of barriers 
that  you  identify  that  can  delay  the  development  and  implementation  of  more 
interoperable systems within the local administrations? 

The  existing  legislation,  which  is  based  on  European  legislation,  facilitates  the  uptake  of 
interoperable systems at the local level. However, the main concern is that municipalities do not 
understand the goal behind the legislation, since they just limit themselves on complying with it, 
e.g. municipalities take the GDPR legislation and they know that they need to ensure compliance. 

230 

 
 
 
 
So instead of creating new rules, the main challenge is to invest in the awareness that the existing 
instruments  (including  legislation)  are  available  to  support  the  transformation  of  their  digital 
infrastructure to deliver better services. 

7.  How  has  national  legislation  supported  the  uptake  implementation  of  interoperable 

services in cities? Are there tools to support this? 

In the Netherlands, there is a big investment fund for municipalities: a 45 million euro per year 
fund manage by VNG (Association of Netherlands Municipalities) mainly to support building blocks 
for municipalities.  

a. 

If yes, is there any procedure to monitor and to report the state of the play (e.g. 
monthly meeting with the municipalities, surveys, etc.)? How do you measure the 
success? 

The VNG is composed of a General Assembly of Dutch Municipalities that meets once a 
year. Municipalities can vote on the decisions that VNG brings into the discussion that can 
have a positive effect to tackle interoperability issues.  

b. 

If not, how can these be promoted to increment their usage (# and depth) alongside 
the cities? How do you measure the success? 

Not applicable. 

8. 

Is there a specific program developed that convers interoperability initiatives? 

The VNG supports the development of the Digital Agenda 2020 for municipalities. This initiative 
brought transparency, efficiency, and governance. Standardisation is one of the topics to tailor-
made local services. 

9. 

In  your  country,  what  are  the  best  practices  (funding  incentives,  government  models,  IT 
solutions,  pilots,  etc.)  or  use  cases  that  you  would  like  to  highlight,  that  are  related  to 
interoperability domain? Would you also like to share best practices that you consider as a 
role-model from other countries? 

The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has allocated a budget of 6 million euros/ year 
to support innovation for municipalities. If municipalities have a great idea to implement, they are 
able  to  apply  for  the  funding  (~300  k  €/  project).  VNG  coordinates  the  implementation  of  the 
project  related  to  the  building  blocks,  ensuring  that  municipalities  share  knowledge  with  each 
other. 

10. As  a  last  question,  do  you  think  that  it  is  important  to  have  a  strong  communication, 
between the national level and the local when developing, implementing and monitoring, 
interoperability solutions, policies and drawing recommendations? 

More than communication, cooperation is critical between the national and the local level. There 
is a need of a national leadership with a clear definition of the roles. 

231 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Greece 

1. 

In your view, what is the vision of interoperability at national level of your country?  

As far as it concerns interoperability, Greece has started to define the legal dimension and the 
organisational dimension by implementing the Ministry of Digital Governance.  

The Ministry of Digital Governance has been recently created to support digitisation at all levels. 
The Ministry had the mandate to introduce new legislation concerning interoperability to ensure 
cooperation between the different stakeholders (internal and external). Still, there are efforts to 
be done in Greece concerning legal and organisational interoperability.  

The  current  vision  is  to  achieve  interoperability  in  all  levels:  the  technical,  semantic,  legal,  and 
organisational, to align the existing framework with the European Interoperability Framework. 

2.  What are the most important strategies, policies, and regulations related to interoperability 

at the national level? Is there a new legislative package under discussion?  

Greece has a central point of implementing interoperability solutions. A new process related to 
the update of the e-GIF (Greek Interoperability Framework) is about to be kicked off and is aligned 
with the European interoperability framework at the national level. This new approach will include 
a new governance model at the national, local, and regional levels. 

The new Digital Transformation Strategy covers all policy strategies around digital transformation, 
and  there  is  a  specific  part  related  to  interoperability.  This  document  will  be  the  new  national 
strategy of Greece, concerning all initiatives around digital transformation. 

3.  Do  you  have  an  interoperability  strategy  for  local/regional  administrations  or  does  the 

national one includes the local/regional level?  

The Greek Interoperability Strategy is defined at the national level. There is no local/regional level 
for interoperability strategy.  

4.  What are the main objectives under these strategies, policies, and regulations related with 
interoperability? What is the state of play of its implementation and level of maturity? 

Greece  wants  to  achieve  a  more  horizontal  governance  of  interoperability.  This  will  allow  to 
govern  more  effectively  and  to  have  a  holistic  approach  concerning  the  implementation  of 
interoperable solutions at the national, local, or regional level.  

If the structure, the legislation and instruments such as the National Interoperability Framework 
aligned with the current European Interoperability Framework, it will enable the country to set 
the scene for the interoperability information systems and solutions. 

5.  How does the current legislation impact positively the interoperable systems at local level 

administration? 

The national-level cooperates with several digital services at the municipalities’ level. However, 
there is no information about the specific impact that the national guidelines and legislation have 
on the interoperable systems at the local level. 

6. 

In the current legislation and regulation, what are the main challenges and type of barriers 
that  you  identify  that  can  delay  the  development  and  implementation  of  more 
interoperable systems within the local administrations? 

232 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The main challenges and barriers are focus on the lack of approach to deal with interoperability. 
However, the existing central infrastructure, in which all IT bodies are under the same "umbrella" 
represents an improvement. 

7.  How  has  national  legislation  supported  the  uptake  implementation  of  interoperable 

services in cities? Are there tools to support this? 

There is no specific tool that is offered at the national/ local level. 

a. 

If yes, is there any procedure to monitor and to report the state of the play (e.g. 
monthly meeting with the municipalities, surveys, etc.)? How do you measure the 
success? 

Not applicable. 

b. 

If not, how can these be promoted to increment their usage (# and depth) alongside 
the cities? How do you measure the success? 

[Due to time limitation this question was not asked]. 

8. 

Is there a specific program developed that convers interoperability initiatives? 

Greece is following the new Digital European Program that will be launched soon. Awareness is 
also giving to other European programmes. At national level, Greece has launched several national 
funding programmes, in which interoperability solutions could be tested and implemented.  

9. 

In  your  country,  what  are  the  best  practices  (funding  incentives,  government  models,  IT 
solutions,  pilots,  etc.)  or  use  cases  that  you  would  like  to  highlight,  that  are  related  to 
interoperability domain? Would you also like to share best practices that you consider as a 
role-model from other countries? 

One of the main projects is the centralised governmental portal for digital services for citizens, 
which has been implemented on the basis of interoperability. 

10. As  a  last  question,  do  you  think  that  it  is  important  to  have  a  strong  communication, 
between the national level and the local when developing, implementing and monitoring, 
interoperability solutions, policies and drawing recommendations? 

In order to implement efficient and effective cross-border digital services, it is very important to have 
specific guidelines to adopt. The local level must have a legislative tool to support the adoption of 
interoperability at all levels, and ensuring strong communication between the national and the local 
level. 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Slovenia 

1. 

In your view, what is the vision of interoperability at national level of your country?  

Interoperability is the ability to interact towards mutual goals through sharing information and 
data between ICT systems. Interoperability also means that different systems and solutions are 
capable  to  exchange  data  based  on  common  agreement  on  how  data  are  structured.  To  have 
common data models on the EU level or at least on the national level. 

Within the framework of the performance of public services, it means the ability of unequal and 
various  organisations  and  systems  of  information  and  communication  technology  to  achieve 
through  interoperability  levels    (political,  legal,  organisational,  semantic,  technical),  mutually 
agreed  and  useful  aims  through  the  exchange  of  information,  data,  and  knowledge,  while  the 
European Interoperability Framework (EIF) is used only to define, together with organisations that 
wish  to  ensure  on  the  basis  of  cooperation,  joint  implementation  of  public  e-services,  joint 
elements like vocabulary, concepts, principles, guidelines, standards, specifications, and practice. 
At this, we must encourage the multilinguistic and daily updating of these elements. We have the 
Slovenian National Interoperability Framework which represents a central metadata framework 
for  the  coordinated  development  of  public  sector  eServices.  The  Slovenian  NIO  portal30 
repositories can be used as catalogues, containing information on collections and structures of 
data, their use, administrators, or persons, responsible for data, et al. In this  sense in  Slovenia 
NIO31  represents  the  national  concept  of  public  administration  functioning,  directed  towards 
sustainable development and management of electronic business.  

2.  What are the most important strategies, policies, and regulations related to interoperability 

at the national level? Is there a new legislative package under discussion?  

There are several strategic documents related to digital development and interoperability at the 
national level: 

In 2015 government adopted Slovenian Public Administration Development Strategy 2015-2020 
as  a  platform  for  a  real  improvement  in  the  operations  of  Slovenia’s  public  administration. 
Effective public administration cannot be achieved without efficient government IT as leverage of 
new  opportunities  and  the  potential  offered  by  modern  interoperable  technological  and 
organisational  approaches,  of  which  cloud  computing  has  one  of  the  greatest  potentials. 
Improving  the  state  of  ICT  in  public  administration  has  gained  significant  synergistic  effects  in 
achieving other strategic targets, as well as in the development of information society. This has 
required effective informatics, the increased use of eServices, digitalisation, and interoperability 
of  information  solutions.  Data  governance  is  a  prerequisite  for  data-driven  developments, 
operations, decisions, and innovative approaches. In this context, a set of actions is in place. The 
development of a central metadata dictionary is a priority and is also the prerequisite for a data 
repository and the development of semantic interoperability. A data repository will provide views 
with  different  perspectives  and  contexts,  which  will  be  the  root  for  the  knowledge  and 
understanding  of  the  data.  The  repository  will  provide  information  on  how  applications  are 
connected to the data, what institutions are responsible for the data, and how data is used through 
public  administration  procedures.  Currently,  this  is  still  the  only  valid  strategy  for  this  field, 
however, the new “Digital public services strategy” is under  preparation. It  will be also  part of 
Digital Slovenia 2030. The basic outline of the new strategy is as follows: user-friendly and simple 
digital  services;  data  for  better  services  and  decision  making  and  a  secure,  trustworthy  and 

30 https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/slovenian-interoperability-portal-nio 

31 https://nio.gov.si/nio/vstopna.nio?lang=en 

234 

 
 
 
                                                            
inclusive digital environment. Any further details are at this moment not available and are still 
under negotiation, but the timeline to adopt a new strategy is by the end of 2021.  

Furthermore,  Digital  Slovenia  2020  -  Development  Strategy  for  the  Information  Society  was 
adopted by the government in 2016 which supports raising general awareness on the importance 
of information and  communication  technologies  (ICT) and the Internet for the development of 
society; sustainable, systematic, and targeted investment in the development of a digital society; 
general  digitalisation  according  to  the  ‘Digital  by  Default’  principle;  competitive  digital 
entrepreneurship and digital industry for digital growth; intensive and innovative use of ICT and 
the Internet in all segments of society; high-speed access, open internet for all; inclusive digital 
society;  secure  cyberspace;  trust  and  confidence  in  cyberspace  and  the  protection  of  human 
rights; and Slovenia – a point of reference for the deployment of innovative approaches in the use 
of  digital  technologies.  The  government 
in  the  digitalisation  of 
entrepreneurship,  an  innovative  data-driven  economy,  and  the  development  and  use  of  the 
internet, smart communities, cities, and homes. Currently, this is still the only valid strategy for 
this  field,  however,  a  new  “Strategy  for  information  society  2030”  is  in  preparation.  The  basic 
outline of the new strategy is as follows: digital connectivity; cybersecurity; digital public services; 
digital inclusion and society 5.0 (advanced technologies e.g. AI, IoT…open data). Any further details 
are at this moment not available and are still under negotiation, but the timeline to adopt a new 
strategy is by the end of 2021.  

investments 

favors 

In 2018, the Semantic Interoperability Implementation Strategy was prepared. With the help of 
tools and procedures defined in the strategy, the following areas are intended to be addressed: 
Once-Only  Principle;  more  efficient  and  standardised  planning  of  information  solutions  models 
(for new and re-engineering existing ones), and a greater degree of reliability and quality of data 
exchanged between systems (one truth rule, same understanding of the meaning of data for all 
users). 

The  Ministry  of  Public  Administration  has  been  drafting  a  National  Strategy  for  Artificial 
Intelligence  which  is  currently  in  the  process  of  governmental  adoption.  A  working  group  was 
formed consisting of representatives of various ministries and government departments. External 
stakeholders include the Slovenian Digital Coalition, the Slovenian Society for Artificial Intelligence, 
Slovenia's Digital Ambassador, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia, the Strategic 
Research and Innovation Partnerships (SRIP PMiS - Smart Cities and Communities and SRIP ToP - 
Factories  of  the  future),  the  Jožef  Stefan  Institute,  the  Faculty  of  Computer  and  Information 
Science of the University of Ljubljana and others). The vision of the programme is to upgrade the 
achievements  in  this  field  and  become  internationally  known  for  these  competencies  and 
knowledge  on  AI  technologies,  with  a  human-centric  approach.  The  programme  shall  focus  on 
innovation  cycle  and  actions  are  foreseen  on:  research,  development,  and  innovation  in  AI; 
deployment  of  AI;  AI  infrastructure;  reaction  and  response  to  ever-changing  environment  (e-
competencies, e-skills, ethics in AI, regulatory framework for AI, public trust in AI); standardization 
in AI and international cooperation in AI. 

3.  Do  you  have  an  interoperability  strategy  for  local/regional  administrations  or  does  the 

national one includes the local/regional level?  

In  Slovenia  we  governmental  institutions  (ministries,  agencies,  etc.)  on  the  national  level  and 
municipalities  as  local  self-government.  Interoperability  is  an  essential  part  of  the  above-
mentioned  national  strategies.  At  the  municipal  level  policies  are  determined  by  mayors  and 
municipal councils. Recently, many municipalities enhanced their policies on digitalisation and/or 
smart  cities.  Some  municipalities  adopted  formal  strategies  that  guide  the  municipal 
administration in the development of this field. 

235 

 
 
 
As  mentioned,  in  Slovenia  we  have  the  Slovenian  National  Interoperability  Framework  which 
represents a metadata framework for the coordinated development of public sector eServices. On 
the NIO portal, system specifications and documentation are available together with standards, 
interoperability  products,  data  access  services,  organisational  rules, 
recommendations, 
interoperability infrastructure, and building blocks. NIO is a portal within the Slovenian national 
interoperability  framework,  consisting  of  different  guidelines,  standards,  information,  and 
building  blocks.  It  helps  to  improve  the  coordination  of  business  processes  and  enables  better 
compatibility  and  connectivity  at  national  and  international  levels.  Many  useful  assets  are 
published  and  explained  on  NIO.  Institutions  can  use  them  when  designing  their  business 
processes and related information systems. Examples of this include building blocks for electronic 
data inquiries, trade, IO module, asynchronous module, and the security platform. If an institution 
wants to electronically gather data from data sources, it can use these building blocks and their 
functionalities. The NIO's Editorial Board, a group of IT experts from various fields, is involved in 
the publication and monitoring of interoperability products’ working process on the NIO portal. 
An important and continuous task of the Committee is to raise awareness of the importance of 
interoperability and the establishment of DIF, NIF, and EIF. 

Public call for demonstration projects establishing smart cities and communities: 

With  Public  calls  for  demonstration  projects  establishing  smart  cities  and  communities,  the 
Ministry of Public Administration would like to achieve a common approach by using the same 
OASC data models. It is obligatory to use the Minimal Interoperability Mechanism on level 2. The 
final solution must relate to the CEF Context Broker Building Block to transfer open data and IoT 
data to the national data lake. All the data must be open by the license CC-BY 4.0. If the data model 
does not exist on the OASC level, we have a conversation with the national chamber of Commerce 
- Strategic Development Partnership Smart Cities and Communities (SRIP PMIS) that they will set 
one. 

4.  What are the main objectives under these strategies, policies, and regulations related with 
interoperability? What is the state of play of its implementation and level of maturity? 

According to the “State-of-Play of Interoperability of Slovenia”32 for the year 2019 Slovenia scores 
from higher to middle-upper performance (among EU countries): 

32 https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Digital_Public_Administration_Infographic_Slovenia_vFINAL_2.pdf 

236 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The state of play of implementation and level of maturity of interoperability is also presented in 
LIFO:  Location  Interoperability  Framework  Observatory33    where  LIFO  indexes  represent  the 
maturity level of location interoperability implementation, also for Slovenia where our results are 
mainly around average.  

Furthermore, as a pilot project, we have also tried IMAPS34 for assessing the interoperability of 
one  digital  public  service,  i.e.  ‘online  application  for  subsidised  public  transport  tickets  for 
students, provided by the Slovenian Ministry of Public Administration via its eGovernment portal 
(“eUprava”). We gained a feedback report and scored around 67% of the points. 

Digital Transformation of Slovenia and its Reference Vision as follows: 

•  systematically  centralise  the  State’s  key  information  infrastructure,  which  is  the  only  way  to 
effectively manage it; 

• the technology has been updated through the implementation of cloud computing, thus making 
solutions accessible to a practically unlimited range of users; 

• opening up public data, because we believe that data that do not impinge on the interests of an 
individual or a business entity should be considered as a public good. 

• encouraging the reform of educational processes, so that they would be more oriented toward 
understanding modern technologies. Functional competencies bare importance, because through 
them, new technologies would be easily implemented and used; 

• focus on the use of business analytics and big data which are essential in terms of understanding 
and smart management of complex social systems, as they can effectively prevent irrationalities, 
social distress, and disease. They also increase the management effectiveness of energy systems, 
public finances, economy, agriculture, and many others. 

5.  How does the current legislation impact positively the interoperable systems at local level 

administration? 

In  November 2020, a new central service SI-CeV was introduced  to  cover the  e-delivery of  the 
official documents  to the citizens and  between public institutions in Slovenia. At present  more 
than 100 public institutions can electronically deliver documents according to the Administrative 
procedure legislation. Citizens are required to activate the secure mailbox within their personal 
space My e-Government within the main e-Government portal to receive the official document 
electronically. In 2021 e-delivery will be possible also according to the Contentious Civil Procedure 
Act.  The  organizational  and  technical  measures  will  be  established  to  integrate  also  public 
institutions from the local level and other secure mailbox providers, also private providers. 

Slovenia continues the preparation of a new law in the area of electronic identification and trust 
services,  which  will  align  national  legislation  with  the  new  Regulation  (EU)  No  910/2014  on 
electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (eIDAS 
Regulation). In 2020 the law was finalized through several steps of inter-ministerial coordination. 
The tentative date of adoption of the new law is envisioned for 2021. It will introduce electronic 
identity that will be issued on different electronic identification means. It is planned that Slovenian 
citizens will be able to use their new identity cards as electronic identification means starting in 
2022. This will have a positive impact on interoperability at the local and national level and will 
support the use of digital services in the country. 

33 https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2020-09/2019_LIFO%20European%20State%20of%20Play%20Report.pdf 

34 https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/imaps-user-stories-slovenian-ministry-public-administration_en 

237 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
6. 

In the current legislation and regulation, what are the main challenges and type of barriers 
that  you  identify  that  can  delay  the  development  and  implementation  of  more 
interoperable systems within the local administrations? 

We believe that the implementation of new identity cards as electronic identification means which 
is planned to be launched in 2022 will strongly support the faster deployment of interoperable 
systems on the national and local level of administration. 

As mentioned, in November 2020 new central service SI-CeV was introduced to underpin the e-
delivery of the official documents to the citizens and between public institutions in Slovenia which 
will also strongly support digital public services performance in practice. 

7.  How  has  national  legislation  supported  the  uptake  implementation  of  interoperable 

services in cities? Are there tools to support this? 

Slovenia is a small country with limited resources, therefore it's very important that we allocate 
and  use  them  wisely.  Centralisation  of  governmental  IT  (governmental  private  cloud), 
development  of  interoperable  digital  solutions  with  different  horizontal  building  blocks  for 
common  functionalities,  e.g.  for  data  exchange  (Tray),  trust  services  for  authentication  and  e-
signature,  and  other  trust  services,  like  central  e-delivery  and  e-mandate  system)  and  digital 
services  development  platform  (so-called  JEP),  providing  secure  document  system  (Krpan)– 
establishing a national framework for successful implementation of interoperable e-services. 

Planning  to  introduce  national  e-identity  card  in  2021  and  mobile-based  solution  for  e-
identification and e-signature aiming to improve  take-up of e-services and interoperability. For 
future development we confirm our common political commitment towards ensuring high quality, 
user-centric and seamless cross-border digital public services for citizens and businesses, ensuring 
that  are  inclusive  of  and  accessible  also  for  persons  with  disabilities.  We  will  continue  the 
cooperation  between  government,  citizens,  business,  academia,  and  civil  society,  gradually 
increasing the level of co-design with the end-users. We will encourage the use of AI and other 
emerging  technologies  for  the  better  well-being  of  our  citizens,  always  paying  attention  to 
fundamental rights. 

a. 

If yes, is there any procedure to monitor and to report the state of the play (e.g. 
monthly meeting with the municipalities, surveys, etc.)? How do you measure the 
success? 

The  monitoring  and  reporting  of  the  state  of  the  play  on  the  European  level  being 
performed  by  EIF  (State-of-Play  of  Interoperability)  as  mentioned  above.  And  on  the 
national  level,  it  is  being  performed  via  different  action  plans  related  to  strategic 
documents mentioned above.  

Furthermore,  the  Local  Self-Government  Service  within  the  Ministry  of  Public 
Administration  is  responsible  for  drafting  regulations  regarding  the  organisation, 
functioning, and financing of municipalities. The State Administration Act (Official Gazette 
of the RS No113/05; 89/07, 126/07, 48/09, 8/10, 8/12, 21/12, 47/13, 12/14, 90/14, and 
51/16) in Article 74a sets out the rules for administration information and communication 
systems  management.  Ministry  responsible  for  public  administration  shall  provide  the 
services  of  the  central  information  and  communication  system,  electronic  support  for 
administrative and other procedures, and develop common IT solutions for the provision 
of eServices by state authorities, public agencies, local community authorities, and bearers 
of  public  authority.  The  cost  of  using  central  information  and  communication  system 
services  by  state  authorities  and  social  work  centers  shall  be  covered  by  the  central 
government  budget.  Public  agencies,  local  community  authorities,  bearers  of  public 
authority, and other users shall pay for the use of these services according to the tariff 

238 

 
 
 
determined by the minister in charge of administration. When performing administrative 
tasks in accordance with the powers conferred by public law, administration authorities, 
local  community  authorities,  and  other  legal  and  natural  persons  shall  keep  electronic 
records  of  documentary  material  within  their  field  of  activity.  For  the  purpose  of 
performing  administrative  tasks,  the  personal  name  or  company  name,  permanent 
residence address or registered office, and email address, if any, of the entity that is the 
subject of the documentary material shall be entered in the electronic records. Personal 
data shall be deleted from the records upon the destruction or withdrawal of documents 
unless they are defined as archival material by the  Act governing archival material and 
archives. The electronic records of documentary material shall also include documents in 
electronic form or documents in paper form transformed into electronic form. Electronic 
records of documentary material shall be linked with the central population register and 
the Slovenian Business Register so that data concerning the personal name or company 
name  and  permanent  or  temporary  residence  address  or  registered  office  can  be 
transferred to the electronic records of documentary material of individual authorities at 
their request on the basis of personal identity numbers, a tax identification number or 
registration number in procedures in which these data are a compulsory component of 
the application. 

At the municipal level policies are determined by mayors and municipal councils. Recently, 
many  municipalities  enhanced  their  policies  on  digitalisation  and/or  smart  cities.  Some 
municipalities adopted formal strategies that guide the municipal administration in the 
development of this field (some examples include, but are not limited to, cities of Koper 
(2015), Kranj (2020), Novo Mesto (2020), Maribor, and Ptuj (foreseen for 2021)). 

It is important to note that more than 20 Slovenian cities succeeded in the 100 Intelligent 
Cities Challenge (ICC) which will result in the formation of new digitalization strategies and 
policies. 

In  accordance  with  the  constitutional  provisions,  Slovenian  municipalities  and  urban 
municipalities are autonomous in the field of introducing eSolutions. Local eGovernment 
initiatives  are  solely  under  the  responsibility  of  local  authorities,  mostly  municipalities, 
which  implement  them  using  their  own  mechanisms  and  time  schedules.  Voluntary 
coordination  is  taking  place  in  the  framework  of  local  government  associations.  For 
instance, the Association of Urban Municipalities of Slovenia established the Committee 
for  digitalisation  and  smart  cities,  which  unites  experts  of  the  11  urban  municipalities. 
Cities  exchange  information  on  best  practices,  solutions,  and  challenges  and  prepare 
position  papers  vis-à-vis  state  policies  and  public  tenders.  As  the  resources  for 
implementing digital solutions at the local level are limited, cities explore possibilities for 
cooperation  in  projects  and  initiatives  that  could  be  co-financed  by  EU  or  state  funds. 
Implementation performance varies across municipalities and is dependent on mayors’ 
agendas,  size  of  the  municipality  (critical  mass  of  users),  and  resources  an  individual 
municipality has. In this framework, human resources often prove to be as challenging as 
financial ones. Generally, urban municipalities, i.e. the 11 main regional centers, achieved 
significant improvement in the digitalisation of services by developing various portals and 
digital solutions, including the digitalisation of public services data. 

Recently, a prominent digitalisation and smart city project is being implemented in the city 
of Kranj. The “Smart Mlaka” project is a pilot action of smart and digital solutions being 
applied at a neighborhood level. The final solution of the mentioned project will enable 
the  collection,  display,  and  analysis  of  data  from  smart  meters  (electricity,  gas,  water), 
smart sensors for the environment and traffic. This will give the Municipality an insight 
into the organization, management, and challenges of such projects and a model that will 
also be suitable for implementation in the rest of the municipality and beyond. 

239 

 
 
The  Ministry  of  Public  Administration  published  in  February  2021  a  public  tender  for 
demonstration projects of establishing smart cities and communities, providing 8 million 
EUR  of  funding  from  the  Operational  Programme  for  the  Implementation  of  the  EU 
Cohesion Policy in the period 2014 – 2020. 

Municipalities that participate in successful ICC consortia are being supported with expert 
assistance  from  the  ICC  programme.  Municipalities  are  aware  of  the  importance  of 
interoperability solutions since digital solutions at the local level tend to be fragmented. 
The public tender, mentioned above provides that supported projects will have to assure 
interoperability of solutions and the usage of the same data models and open standards. 

b. 

If not, how can these be promoted to increment their usage (# and depth) alongside 
the cities? How do you measure the success? 

Not applicable. 

8. 

Is there a specific program developed that convers interoperability initiatives? 

Different interoperability initiatives have been captured in above mentioned strategic documents 
together with needed resources for its implementation.  

As  mentioned  before,  in  Slovenia  we  have  the  Slovenian  National  Interoperability  Framework 
which represents the central point and strategic framework for the coordinated development of 
interoperability e-services, digital development, and connectivity to the EU JoinUp platform. Since 
2011 the NIO's Editorial Board was established consisting of a group of IT experts from various 
fields involved in the publication and monitoring of interoperability products working process on 
the NIO portal.  

9. 

In  your  country,  what  are  the  best  practices  (funding  incentives,  government  models,  IT 
solutions,  pilots,  etc.)  or  use  cases  that  you  would  like  to  highlight,  that  are  related  to 
interoperability domain? Would you also like to share best practices that you consider as a 
role-model from other countries? 

Here are some examples from our good practices as follows: 

NIO - National interoperability framework  

is  an  agreed  approach  for  the 

Interoperability  Framework  (NIO) 

The  Slovenian 
joint 
implementation of public services, which determines a set of common elements or products, such 
as  vocabulary,  concepts,  principles,  policies,  guidelines,  standards,  specifications,  and  best 
practices.  The  NIO  portal  is  a  cornerstone  of  interoperability  and  a  basic  tool  for  publishing, 
monitoring, and using interoperability products. The Editorial Board of the NIO portal is a group of 
28  experts  in  public  sector  domains  of  interoperability.  The  editorial  team  is  tied  to  the 
implementation of an individual field. The area is an agreed set of contents for the efficient and 
effective joint implementation of interoperable public services. The purposes and goals of the NIO 
editorial  board  are  the  responsibility  of  the  national  interoperability  framework,  education, 
awareness, and promotion of NIO with wide international collaboration and cooperation on the 
field of interoperability and integrated digital solutions. 

Open data portal 

The National Open Data Portal (OPSI) was launched in December 2016. The OPSI Portal represents 
a  single  national  website  for  publishing  open  data  for  the  entire  public  sector  and  has  a  dual 
function. Firstly, it represents the central catalogue of records and databases in the Country; it is 
a  central  inventory  of  metadata  from  all  records  and  databases  managed  by  State  authorities, 
municipalities,  and  other  public  sector  bodies.  Secondly,  it  represents  a  single  website  for 

240 

 
 
 
 
publishing  data  in  open  and  machine-readable  formats.  The  portal  provides  everyone  with  the 
right to free and easy reuse of freely accessible data published in the ‘open data’ form for any 
(non-profit  or  profit)  purpose.  On  the  portal,  all  public  sector  bodies  publish  data  by  category. 
Currently, over 5 000 data sets are published on the portal (at least with metadata). The goal was 
to  establish  the  so-called  Open  Data  Ecosystem  based  on  the  OPSI  Portal,  to  encourage 
cooperation between all stakeholders concerned by the opening and/or re-use of data. In March 
2020 we achieved this goal by establishing the OPSIHub. A year later the OPSIHub has 15 members 
which  represent  public  sector 
institutions,  non-governmental 
institutions,  educational 
organisations, research journalists, start-up companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, and 
larger companies. Slovenia has been ranked among the  top countries in  the field of open data 
(OECD OURIndex 2019).  

National forum for e-business and digitisation of entrepreneurship. 

The  cooperation  of  a  broad  spectrum  of  stakeholders  is  of  key  importance  in  ensuring 
interoperability.  Slovenia  demonstrated  the  need  for  stakeholders’  active  involvement  in  the 
formulation  of  agreements  relating  to  the  standards  applied  at  the  national  level  and  the 
promotion and implementation of the agreed solutions in the preparations for the mandatory use 
of e-invoicing in public administration. The role of the National e-invoicing forum in this process is 
an example of good practice to be applied elsewhere in standardising e-business and digitisation 
of entrepreneurship by reorganising the National e-invoicing forum into the National forum for e-
business and digitisation of entrepreneurship. In this process, a model will have to be designed so 
as to enable the inclusion of all stakeholders (including representatives of competent authorities 
of  public  administration),  consideration  of  the  already  included  elements,  and  the  prompt 
integration of results of agreements in the national interoperability framework NIO. 

Geospatial Web Services 

Slovenia provides platform users with access to location data via web services made on the basis 
of OGC consortium standards (Open Geospatial consortium) and INSPIRE-compliant web services 
based on INSPIRE specifications. The web services supported are online catalogue services (CSW) 
which  return  metadata  information  about  data  and  services;  online  map  services  (WMS  and 
WMTS) which return a cartographically designed display of data based on defined styles. The WMS 
server prepares the map display dynamically, in real-time, on the basis of the specified parameters 
and stored styles for content display. The WMTS server returns previously prepared cartographic 
displays with predefined styles and in a predefined coordinate system. Web feature services (WFS) 
return vector and descriptive data in real-time according to the specified parameters. 

There  are  several  good  practices  where  Slovenian  municipalities  developed  various  tools  and 
portals  to  enhance  the  dialogue  with  citizens,  including  the  implementation  of  participatory 
budgets and proposals for city improvements, to improve the quality of public services provided, 
and to implement their smart city or digitalisation plans and strategies. Examples of subnational 
portals: 

-             Izboljšajmo Maribor (Let’s improve Maribor), Urban municipality of Maribor – citizens’ 
proposal for improvements, notices on public infrastructure damage; 

-             Izboljšajmo Ptuj (Let’s improve Ptuj), Urban municipality of Ptuj - citizens’ proposal for 
improvements, notices on public infrastructure damage; 

-             Čuj, sodeluj (Maribor, participate), Urban municipality of Maribor – citizens’ proposals for 
projects and voting on projects of the participatory budget; 

-             Predlagam – odločam (Propose – decide) Urban municipality of Koper – citizens’ proposals 
for projects and voting on projects of the participatory budget; 

241 

 
 
 
-             Servis 48, Urban Municipality of Celje – citizens’ proposal for improvements, notices on 
public infrastructure damage; 

-             Servis pobude meščanov (Citizen’s proposals service), Urban Municipality of Ljubljana – 
citizens’ proposal for improvements, notices on public infrastructure damage; 

-             KrPovej (Kranj, tell us), Urban municipality of Kranj – citizens’ proposal for improvements, 
notices on public infrastructure damage; 

-             Odprti podatki Mestne občine Ljubljana (Open data of Urban Municipality of Ljubljana), 
Urban Municipality of Ljubljana – open data portal,  

 On individual municipalities’ websites, citizens can access all application forms online, which can 
be  submitted  with  a  digital  signature  via  e-mail.  Various  public  utility  companies,  owned  by 
municipalities,  also  developed  portals  for  users  where  they  can  access  their  costs  and  data  on 
usage,  for  instance  of  drinking  water,  waste,  heating,  etc.  At  the  municipal  level  policies  are 
determined  by  mayors  and  municipal  councils.  Recently,  many  municipalities  enhanced  their 
policies on digitalisation and/or smart cities. Some municipalities adopted formal strategies that 
guide the municipal administration in the development of this field. 

eHealth solutions  

Slovenian eHealth solutions have proven to be especially valuable in light of COVID - 19 pandemics.  
As healthcare providers have minimized physical interactions, digital transactions have become 
literally indispensable, and the usage of existing services has vastly increased.  The Central Registry 
of Patient Data was enhanced to support COVID-19 screening. Not only are all test results duly 
reported  in  CRPD  but  also  SMS  notifications  of  test  results  are  provided.  Moreover,  a  sound 
eHealth infrastructure facilitated the long-awaited digitization of communicable disease registries 
and epidemiology services.  Essential digital tools have been provided for public health authorities 
and policymakers. 

242 

 
 
 
 
10. As  a  last  question,  do  you  think  that  it  is  important  to  have  a  strong  communication, 
between the national level and the local when developing, implementing and monitoring, 
interoperability solutions, policies and drawing recommendations? 

Yes, we believe strong mutual communication and collaboration between the national and local 
levels is of utmost importance for interoperability development and for supporting digitalisation in 
the country. This is also the way NIO via its Board operates in the country to support and connect 
interoperability and digital development. 

243 

 
 
 
Ireland 

1. 

In your view, what is the vision of interoperability at national level of your country?  

Interoperability  is  a  key  concern  and  it  is  being  addressed  by  the  National  Public  Service  data 
strategy.  The  Data  Strategy  describes  interoperability  as  a  key  element  of  establishing  a  data 
ecosystem that will improve the management of the data – how the data is used in a secure, safe, 
efficient  and  transparent  way  to  deliver  better  services,  better  quality  digital  services  to  our 
citizens. 

2.  What are the most important strategies, policies, and regulations related to interoperability 

at the national level? Is there a new legislative package under discussion?  

The most important strategy is the Data-Sharing Act 2019. Still, there is some section in progress, 
such as establishing the data governance board. The Data Sharing Act puts the foundation for the 
national data strategy.  

In Ireland, the national data strategy sets up the vision, the main objectives, and the principles in 
which  the  public  service  act  and  how  the  interaction  between  various  public  services  can  be 
facilitated by better data integration.  

At the same time, we are developing sector-specific data strategies in the Department of Housing, 
Local  Government,  and  Heritage.  All  national  authorities  have  been  developing  their  digital 
strategies in recent years to deal with digital transformation, and in particular, with data and use 
of data.  

In  a  wider  context,  there  is  a  new  version  of  the  Our  Public  Service  (OPS)  2020,  that  have 
embedded a range of new approaches to governance, people management, and service delivery, 
and  have  made  the  work  of  the  public  service  more  transparent,  decision-making  more 
accountable, and service delivery more effective. This strategy includes how to put into practice 
actions around data. However, it has a holistic view around staff and skills, namely the adoption 
of new data practices, raising awareness around data practices, and raising awareness around the 
use of technology for delivering services. So, there is a context in which specific data strategies are 
developed at a national context as well as at the local context. One of our key policy documents 
to inform the development of interoperability is the Open Data strategy 2017 – 2022. 

3.  Do  you  have  an  interoperability  strategy  for  local/regional  administrations  or  does  the 

national one includes the local/regional level?  

There  is  a  national  context  in  which  local  and  regional  administrations  can  define  their  own 
strategies  if  they  wish,  or  feel  that  it  is  necessary.  However,  there  is  a  national  perspective  to 
provide some sort of guidelines to the local or regional level. 

4.  What are the main objectives under these strategies, policies, and regulations related with 
interoperability? What is the state of play of its implementation and level of maturity? 

The data-strategy act has several objectives related to interoperability: 

-  Creating  an  interoperability  platform,  which  is  going  to  be  API  based,  looking  at  the  service-
oriented architecture; 

-  The  need  to  have  the  right  legislation  in  place  with  the  appropriate  governance  to  set  the 
standards for data exchange. There are over 200 systems in the local government and we need to 
work  more  on  standards  and  data  standards  in  order  to  facilitate  data  collection,  integration, 
interoperability, and obviously, analytics.  

244 

 
 
 
 
 
- Analytics is another key objective of this as it enhances the ability to analyse data.  

- The establishment of trusted identifiers. The lack of trust identifiers drives the hardness to relate, 
aggregate and to analyse data.  

- Establishment of base registries on a built-to-share type of scenario. In Ireland, we are following 
a principle that can be described as the following: if public data or service is collected once, it must 
be re-used by avoiding ask the citizen the same data multiple times. 

5.  How does the current legislation impact positively the interoperable systems at local level 

administration? 

Data sharing and the governance board will fully support organisations for the implementation of 
interoperable  solutions  between  public  service  agencies.  The  legislation  allowed  the  ability  to 
share data contracts between public service organisations. This means a positive step and we have 
the right structures in place.  

6. 

In the current legislation and regulation, what are the main challenges and type of barriers 
that  you  identify  that  can  delay  the  development  and  implementation  of  more 
interoperable systems within the local administrations? 

From a data perspective, the legislation around GDPR has a huge impact. One of the key features 
was to gather the data at a national level, from local authorities in compliance with GDPR. Data 
sharing context is a key issue for us. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has organised 
several seminars and services bringing other European partners to discuss the topic. A lot of the 
latest GDPR legislation has been tested yet and people are unsure about where the public goods 
were that outweigh the rights of the individual. 

7.  How  has  national  legislation  supported  the  uptake  implementation  of  interoperable 

services in cities? Are there tools to support this? 

The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer has been working on this topic. One of 
them  is the  creation of the public sector data catalogue, which  focuses on data storage across 
different public sector parties to encourage data harmonisation.  

Another topic is related to the standardisation framework as a building block in the creation of 
data strategies. 

a. 

If yes, is there any procedure to monitor and to report the state of the play (e.g. 
monthly meeting with the municipalities, surveys, etc.)? How do you measure the 
success? 

[Due to time limitation this question was not asked]. 

b. 

If not, how can these be promoted to increment their usage (# and depth) alongside 
the cities? How do you measure the success? 

[Due to time limitation this question was not asked]. 

8. 

Is there a specific program developed that convers interoperability initiatives? 

245 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At  the  moment,  we  [Department  of  Housing,  local  government  and  heritage]  are  developing  a 
small pilot project with six local authorities to deeper analyse technical issues of data exchange 
between local authorities and our department and to search for new methods more efficient of 
data exchange.  Up to now, two main methods showing more effectiveness: one is the sharing of 
a spreadsheet, which flows back and forth with information and the second one is the go-ahead-
based service where data can be exchanged using fixed format files. 

Our Department is also working on a project that cuts out the need for exchange data, in the sense 
that all the information is at one single system and can be extracted directly from that system.  

Recently, the department created a website, in which housing data from different sources is being 
collected into a single place - a single file that citizens can get information.  

We  will  hopefully  move  to  the  point  where  it  becomes  a  much  more  automatic  exchange  of 
information, feed of information between the sector and ourselves.  

9. 

In  your  country,  what  are  the  best  practices  (funding  incentives,  government  models,  IT 
solutions,  pilots,  etc.)  or  use  cases  that  you  would  like  to  highlight,  that  are  related  to 
interoperability domain? Would you also like to share best practices that you consider as a 
role-model from other countries? 

Ireland has created a single unique identifier, a postcode called EIRCODE. Launched in July 2015, 
EIRCODE enables individuals and organisations to find any address in the country. 

In  Ireland,  35%  of  the  addresses  are  shared  with  at  least  one  other  property,  which  makes  it 
difficult  for  those  delivering  of  goods  and  services  to  pinpoint  an  exact  location.  EIRCODE  was 
designed  to  tackle  this  issue,  since  EIRCODE  is  targeted  to  each  single  residential  or  business 
address. This identifier represents one of the critical steps forward that Ireland started to take in 
the last few years.  

Besides the postcode identifier, Ireland has also been working on two other identifiers the 
PPSN - Personal Public Services Number for individuals, which is a unique reference number 
that is needed for all dealings with public service agencies and a unique business identifier.  

10. As  a  last  question,  do  you  think  that  it  is  important  to  have  a  strong  communication, 
between the national level and the local when developing, implementing and monitoring, 
interoperability solutions, policies and drawing recommendations? 

[Due to time limitation this question was not asked]. 

246 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the information included in this 

On the phone or by email 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can 
find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can 
contact this service: 

•  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
•  at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or 
•  by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://op.europa.eu/en/ 
publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct 
or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en)  provides  access  to  datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non- 
commercial purposes. 

Disclaimer 

This deliverable was prepared for the ISA2 programme by Deloitte under SC417. 

The views expressed in this deliverable are purely those of the authors and may not, in any 

circumstances, be interpreted as stating an official position of the European Commission. 

report, nor does it accept any responsibility for any use thereof. 

Reference herein to any specific products, specifications, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the European Commission. 

All care has been taken by the author to ensure that s/he has obtained, where necessary, 

permission to use any parts of manuscripts including illustrations, maps, and graphs, on which 

intellectual property rights already exist from the titular holder(s) of such rights or from her/his or 

their legal representative. 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission 

Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 

14.12.2011, p. 39). 

indicated. 

Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 4.0 International  (CC-BY  4.0)  licence  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

This  means  that  reuse  is  allowed  provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission 

may need to be sought directly from the respective rightholders. 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-40549-8 

doi:10.2799/085469 

NO-02-21-931-EN-N 

 
 
 
N
O
-
0
2
-
2
1
-
9
3
1
-
E
N
N

-

Final Study Report - Proposal for a 

European Interoperability Framework for 

Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC)